IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12128 of 2005 Smt.Neeta Sharma wife of Sunil Kumar Sharma, at and P.O. Harrakh-Kothi, P.S. Begusarai, District-Begusarai. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Transport Commissioner, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna. 3. The regional Transport Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. 4. District Transport Officer, Begusarai. 5. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Begusarai. 6. Additional Collector-Cum-District Certificate Officer, Begusarai. Respondents. For the petitioner:- (i) Mr. S.S.Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate. (ii) Mr. Rakesh Chandra, Advocate. (iii) Mr. R.K. Dubey, Advocate. (iv) Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, Advocate. For State:- Piyush Bose, Asstt. Counsel to AAG-I. ----------- 4. 16.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- i. Respondents no. 1 to 5 may be commanded to take final decisions with respect to cancellation of registration of the motor vehicle of the petitioner registered as BR-9A/9009 (tanker). ii. Respondents no. 1 to 5 may be directed to cancel and withdraw certificate case no. 46 of 2003-04 forthwith and to absolve the petitioner from the responsibility of paying the road taxes w.e.f. 1.10.2000, the date of surrender of the vehicle, made by her with them. iii. All the proceedings in the certificate case no. 46 2 of 2003-04 before Respondent no. 6 as well as the order dated 25.08.2005 passed by him may be quashed. iv. Any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be deemed entitled to, may be granted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the owner of a tanker bearing no. BR-9A/9009 which was used for carrying petroleum products for which explosive license was granted to the petitioner and for which fitness was necessary. It is also stated that petitioner’s explosive license was cancelled in the year 2000 and hence due to the said reason and due to the tanker becoming useless, the petitioner placed it at Anil Fuel Services (Petrol Pump) Amnaur on 30.09.2000 paying up to date taxes and filing application for surrender of the vehicle along with all the requisite documents on 30.09.2000 itself for which Tax Token no. 140843 was issued. 4. It is further stated that on the basis of the aforesaid application District Transport Officer asked the Motor Vehicle Inspector to make verification, whereafter the Motor Vehicle Inspector submitted report to the District Motor Vehicle Officer on 04.04.2001 (Annexure-4A) that surrender can be accepted. Inspite of the aforesaid facts the District Transport Officer rejected the application for surrender filed by the petitioner vide order dated 24.05.2001(Annexure-A) on the ground that it was not in the form prescribed under Section 17 (1) of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1991. It is also claimed by the 3 petitioner that no notice or information about the said order was sent to the petitioner who had no knowledge about the same and it was never sent by the authorities to the petitioner, whereas on the other hand, the said authorities continued granting extensions for the surrender. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner avers that she also filed an application on 01.03.2002 for cancellation of her registration along with the requisite fees to the authorities concerned. However, this application has also been rejected by the authorities vide order dated 29.03.2003 (Annexure-B) on the ground that the petitioner had not paid taxes from 01.10.2000 till 31.03.2002. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges both the aforesaid orders dated 24.05.2001(Annexure-A) and dated 29.03.2003(Annexure-B) on the ground that no notice or information of either of the orders were ever given to her and only when she filed this writ petition, the said orders have been produced by the respondent authorities along with the counter affidavit, and the petitioner learnt about the same. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the prescribed provision of law surrender is accepted only on two grounds, namely, if any accident had taken place and/or if the vehicle is not plying on the ground of litigation. He further submits that the cancellation of registration cannot be allowed unless up to date taxes are paid, hence the authorities were justified in passing the impugned order. 4 8. He also claims that the provisions of law, namely Section 26 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1991 read with Rule 18 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1994 provide an attentive remedy for such reliefs but the petitioner has not exhausted the said remedy before approaching this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file an appeal before the prescribed authority. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. However, if an appeal as per the aforesaid provision of law is filed by the petitioner along with all the requisites and an application for condoning the delay as well as a copy of this order within three weeks, the said appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the appeal. 11. If the petitioner wants any interim relief she may file an interlocutory application before the appellate authority, who shall decide it expeditiously. Kamlesh (S.N. Hussain, J.)