SCR.A/1098/1999 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1098 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= INDIAN HIRING, THROUGH PARTNERJAMAL AHMEDKHAN - Applicant(s) Versus DG JAISWAL & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JB PARDIWALA for Applicant(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. Ms. Mita S. Panchal, Addl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 02/04/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner has invoked Articles 14, 16, 19 and 226 of the Constitution for the SCR.A/1098/1999 2/6 JUDGMENT prayers inter-alia, of declaration that the action of respondents No.1 and 2, the Motor Vehicles Authorities under the State, the respondent No.4, of detaining the trucks along with scrap material of three payloaders was arbitrary, illegal and in contravention of the provisions of The Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 2. By virtue of the first interim order herein, dated 27.12.1999, all the three trucks were ordered to be released, and the payloaders were directed to be unloaded and ordered to be kept at the place where the authorities suggested. Thereafter the petitioner had filed Criminal Misc.Application No. 4783 of 2005 in the present petition seeking release of the payloaders on condition of furnishing of bank guarantee of Rs.3,75,000/- and on such other terms and conditions as the court may deemed fit. After hearing learned counsel, the application was allowed on condition of the petitioner SCR.A/1098/1999 3/6 JUDGMENT furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 5,86,387/- for releasing the payloaders. However, the petitioner is stated to have been unable to furnish the bank guarantee and get the payloaders released. Thus, the payloaders have remained in custody and constructive possession of the respondent since they were detained on 29.11.1999 at Bhilad checkpost. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the payloaders in question were not liable for payment of any tax as they were neither transport vehicles nor non-transport vehicles. They were detained when they were admittedly not running on the road but carried for transport on other vehicles. It was also submitted that even if such equipments were supposed to be included in the definition of "vehicle" by any subsequent notification, rule or amendment, they have remained in custody of the respondent, under a detention order and, therefore, the tax liability fixed at Rs. 5,86,337/- was unjust and SCR.A/1098/1999 4/6 JUDGMENT unrealistic. Learned counsel relied upon judgment of this court dated 1.9.2000 in Special Civil Application No.9976 of 1999. 4. No affidavit-in-reply is filed by or on behalf of any of the respondents even as the proceedings are pending since more than seven years. Learned APP appearing for the respondents submitted that the factual averments regarding the payloaders in question being neither transport vehicles nor non-transport vehicles were not admitted but disputed; and that basic issue involves disputed question of fact. As for the subsequent tax liability, it was not the subject matter of the petition at all and, therefore, no reply or explanation could have been submitted in that regard. 5. It was, however, jointly submitted, relying upon section 14A of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 that the State Government had plenary powers to take any decision in SCR.A/1098/1999 5/6 JUDGMENT revision of any order passed by the taxation authority. In the facts of this case, the tax liability to the tune of Rs.5,86,337/- appears to have been determined by the order dated 4.7.2005 and that order is proposed to be carried in revision by the petitioner. Learned APP stated and submitted on behalf of the respondent that, if such application for revision of the order with all necessary factual details and contentions regarding the liability, if any, of the petitioner as on the date of detention and for the subsequent period were made, the State Government would decide the issues and determine the liability, if any, of the petitioner within a period of three months of receipt of the application for revision. It was, on that basis, submitted on behalf of the petitioner by learned advocate Mr Pardiwala, that the petitioner would, without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the present petition, make a detailed representation in the form of an application for revision and place before the Government all SCR.A/1098/1999 6/6 JUDGMENT necessary facts, details, documents and the legal contentions for an appropriate decision thereon; and such application shall be made as early as practicable, within a period of one month. Accordingly, the present petition was not pressed for any relief at this stage and it was jointly requested to be disposed as not pressed in view of the agreement and understanding recorded hereinabove. Therefore, the petition is disposed as not pressed and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs with the direction to the parties to abide by the statements recorded hereinabove. sd/- [D. H. Waghela, J.] msp