(1) W.P. No.2759/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2759 OF 2007 Masud Ahmd s/o Amiruddin Gazi ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.K. Naikwade, Advocate for petitioner; Mr S.G. Sangle, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & N.W. SAMBRE, JJ. DATE : 21st March, 2014 PER COURT: Mr Naikwade, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the auction of the vehicle owned by the petitioner was conducted by the Regional Transport Officer, allegedly for recovery of arrears of tax. The said auction proceedings were conducted against the statutory provisions and the Rules. The petitioner was not intimated about the action undertaken by the respondents for auction of the vehicle. According to the learned Counsel, the respondents were aware of the address of the petitioner, as would be clear from the communications made by the respondents on the correct address. However, while giving the last notice before auction, the same was sent on the old address. Naturally, the petitioner did not receive the same and auction of the vehicle has been conducted at throw away price. Even the petitioner had communicated (2) W.P. No.2759/2007 the respondent that in installments the respondent would pay the tax, but to no avail. According to the learned Counsel, the action of the respondents in auctioning the vehicle of the petitioner is arbitrary and the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5 Lacs for the loss sustained by him. 2. The learned A.G.P. Submits that the petitioner was habitual defaulter. The auction has been conducted after following the proper procedure and the Rules. 3. The address mentioned at page 22, i.e. the communication by the R.T.O. Office to the petitioner, is stated to be House bearing No. 4-12-34, whereas one of the communications made by the petitioner shows his House Number as 4-10-74. Considering the variance in the house numbers, it would not be possible to arrive at any conclusion about the correct address of the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner was aware of the arrears of tax outstanding against him. Even just prior to the auction, the petitioner had sought time in paying the tax. This would show that the petitioner was aware of the action being taken by the respondents. The cost of the vehicle as on the date of the auction is also not put-forth by the petitioner. In the absence of the evidence in that regard, it would not be possible to (3) W.P. No.2759/2007 conclude about the exact market value of the vehicle at the time of auction. The tax from the year 1998-2003 remained unpaid. It appears that the truck in question was purchased in the year 1980. Naturally, on the date of auction, the truck was more than 23 years old. 5. Considering the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. The writ petition, as such, is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. (N.W. SAMBRE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) amj/wp2759.07