IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14049 of 2009 1. SATYANARAYAN PRASAD JAISWAL S/O LATE S.P.JAISWAL M.I.G.-86, LOHIANAGAR, P.S.- KANKARBAGH, DISTT. AND TOWN OF PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE JOINT STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER PATNA ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Shanti Pratap and Arvind Kumar Verma, Advocates. For the State : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, G.A. 10. ------ 4/ 25.01.2010 The orders under challenge in the present writ are the order dated 11.04.2008 (Annexure-3) passed by the Joint State Transport Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, the appellate order dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure-2), passed by the Secretary, Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna in Taxation Appeal No.1 of 2008 and the order dated 14.01.2009 ( Annexure-1) passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Revision Case No. 32 of 2008. 2. The origin of the present dispute is an application filed by the petitioner seeking exemption for payment of road tax with respect to Mini Truck No.BR 14G- 1001 for the period 12.05.2005 to 29.11.2007. The basis for seeking such an exemption by the petitioner was because the said vehicle came to be high-jacked by criminals on 11.05.2005 for which an F.I.R. came to be - 2 - instituted and investigated which was registered as Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 103 of 2005. The vehicle in question subsequently came to be recovered by the police and the possession was handed over to the petitioner on 29.11.2007. 3. None of the authorities, who passed the impugned orders, contained in Annexures- 1, 2 and 3, were inclined to grant exception to the petitioner for the reasons stated therein and this compelled the petitioner to file the present writ application, challenging such decisions primarily on the grounds that the decisions are irrational, not passed on true facts on records, on wrong assumption of facts and the reasoning assigned is extraneous. 4. One common thread of reasoning for rejection is that the vehicle in question did not have valid permit on 12.05.2005, there was no up-to-date tax payment and fitness certificate in respect of the said vehicle nor did it have any insurance papers. 5. Petitioner brought on record two documents, namely, Annexure-5/1, which is the road permit No. 824/2002 showing its validity from 24.05.2002 to 23.05.2007. The other document in question is Annexure-7, which is a communication dated 31.10.2009 certifying that the vehicle had valid permit to operate across the State of Bihar from the date 24.05.2002 to - 3 - 23.05.2007. There is also evidence to show that the petitioner had deposited the necessary road tax and at the relevant time the road tax covered the period 07.03.2005 to 06.06.2005. 6. If these facts are not disputed and denied by the State in its counter-affidavit, rather the authenticity of the documents has been accepted in the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by two respondents brought on record today, then the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the three impugned orders. 7. The impugned orders have been passed on premises which are not otherwise borne out from the record of the case. It is a case of non-application of mind and without verification of factual aspects brought on record. 8. The writ application stands allowed. All the three impugned orders, as contained in Annexures-1,2 and 3 stand quashed and the matter is remitted back to respondent no.4 for fresh consideration of the matter after hearing the petitioner on issue. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J ) BTiwary/