^N> 1. IN THE HONOURABLE_j'I£GH_eOURT OP_,GHHATTJSGAR_HAT BILA_SPUR. WRIT PETITION N0. %-3^ /aaff^. DtRIT PBTITICN TOID_ER AKTICIiES OE CONSTITUTKW PETITXONER .^•^.^' ^.^^^ ^^aAWJ^:j>" QF INDIA "^ Malyendra Slngb Babra S/o Shri Harbans singh.age 50 years, Prop, "Prtnse" Bsbra Transporfe, resident of Deviganj ReaS, Ambika' pur, Bistt. surguja (C.G). '^•- VSKSVS &B,^ RBSPONDSWTS Stabe of chhattisgarh, Through searetary Department of Tranaport, Raipur (c.G). 2. secrefeary, Regiohal Tr.ansport Authorifey Bilaspur ; c.G.. and Taxation Authorifcy; ;' 3. DisbrlQt Transport Officer Raigarh (e.G). PARTXCULfiRS OF THE PETITXONER '' •li'^h •; 'i"^^:'::^^^ai XI-H&22 SfKWI f?:ii«:'3fi3?i ^'wgfer ISEIKI'SB-' 'Ssf••tSWk^^S'wi^Svawy}. WfRW StiHRt ^..^ 'SeO'•^ 3Ii^s( TRITW(Tl%Ti 07-08-2002 Shri R.N. Jha with Shri v^vi'S', ^w^i ti rs^\ TfsR?R ^7 3IT;r;tT 3TR5I D.N. Prajapati, counsel for fhe petitiouer. Shri Sanjay Kuiaar Agr^wal, Deputy Advocate General for fhe State/respondent No.l. The chaUeuge ia ttus wijit petition is to tfae seizure of a passenger bus bearing Registration No, CPL 9961 aad HnposittOB. of tax fhereon. j Undisputedly, the vehicle in question was seized at a place, which was not on thc (nute for which fhc pcnnit was grauted. The seizure nienio | which was drawn up, clcarly indicates fhat at the tmie of se^zure, relevaut docuxaents which are to be camed in ttie vehicle! were not found. A copy of the seizure nieino is airaexed as lAniiexure P-6. petition, a prayer is inade fipr a declaration that the said passenger bus is not liable to 1^e seized and that the iruposition of tax be declared bad ia law. K BC ?.^'^''.'^.^ft;Si®S%IBSSSffiiRBW;gBMKSBSSIffi'IBSW^ BSssfeiHiKS'gBiS BKIMjSflBB Stl^tqff 'fe'w'snt^i 'SiiiWdf^T TfllHCTI l**ll<») T^R __fc.&j^.pMt^° 200 3I!^( •?RHWCT?3 •-2-- ^i^-'-n1^ ~v^rT\\ ^ fe^t •f.Fs'^i ^? 3IF3II SiI^I ' Section 20 of The Madl^ya Pradesh Motoiyan Karadhaii ci»y-^^r^n^ Adbiaiyam, 1991 clearly prov^des that/aggrieved by an order •» inade for levy oftax or for pendlty iniposed uiider Section 13, or ^grieved by fhe seizure of niotorvehicle inade under Sectiou 16, or aggrieved by any ord^r passed uader this Act, may, wifhin the prescribed time prsfer au appeal to flie prescribed Adnuttedly, there is an. ]efficacious altemative reinedy available to tfae petitioner wh^re even factual aspects cau be i ;oue into. ] Leamcd counsel for the p^titioncr inade a rcference to a case of J.M. Baxi & Co., - V^ - Coinnsissioaer of Cnstoins. reporjted m 2001 (IX) SCC 275 and contended that the rule of esthaustion of altemative rem.edv cannot stand in fhe way of tlie High Court exercisuig its jurisdiction under Article 220 of the Constitution of India. There caa be no dispute to fhe principle but as a rule of 1 prudence, the Court do not exei(cise its power under Article 226 when aa altemate and equaUy ief&cacious remedy is avaBable. ^n-T-iC-22 3T1^T ^i 'R-n? 3<is?i ^r^i^ fi(?^i i ^l..^^^^. / .^-sWK-^SS ':!saia8i;$iE:ES3Si Murthy ^^^qrai^q, mfTOTS, WfiKiy © ^..^.L^.^D^ „ ^ icifiri&t SIi^'i'^mW^ftB ^I<1TCT'?R ''W^. v. ^S^ TF5RCTr ^? .sr:5rtr sn^'i Even ia paragraph 3 of Buxi's j=ase (supra), the Apex Cou-it has observed that nonnally the Hi^h Court ought not to interfere in ^ exercise of its jurisdiction undqr Article 226 of fhe Constitution of India wheu au efficacious ialtemative rcmedy is avaiiable. But it couM do so in speclal cases. In that case, fhe jurisdiction was exercised bec^use the demaad of 46 lakhs, which is the subject inatter of chaUenge was onerous aad also barred by tune. | Haviag considered the tnatter, the Court declm.es to entertain this writ petition as iiji its opinion, fhe petitiouer has aii altemativc cfficacious reniipdv under Scction 20 of Thc Madhya Pradcsh Motoryan Kai^dhan Adhuiiyam, 1991, which the petitioner would avail, if so Wifh fhe aforesaid obsqrvations, the petition stands