'^» " G w ^ 9 1N THE HIGH CO-URT OF CI-SI-1ATTJSGAKH AT BJLASpUR ;^^.!.*tfht"a|t:*"i*^+ft'.i'(!" •*tt)^—:^': -<t—i».^-*;'^»"-l PETJTJQNER Wirit PetJ-tlon No.22-7^/2oo2. $ &mt» Saraswati Daiai W/o Mahendra Dalai, aged 28 years, R/o Samaleshwari Colony, PIodipara S ainba Ipu^: (Orr 1s s a) <, V E R S U S RESPONDENTS: 'f ^ l^ Stafce of CN-iattJ.sga.rh, Secretary, Department of Transport D^K^Bhigivan^ Raipur (C^G<)^ ^^- .«.>"^.^/1'.''..^/^-^^' 2* Asstt. Seeretary, ,^^f \^ .&• St&te Transport Auttiority, Raipur (C.G,), liRIT PETIT20N UNDER ARTICLE 226. OE THE CONSTITUTJON OF 2NDIA : • - . • • - - . - ± XI-HC-22 ^M^T (<'(i?h ^iHT^ ^{^<T •A ^' HIHdl ®) ^? T^1^1d<4, ^Til^^^, [oKrti^y ,%S.B^°a 200 'f^^T' ^1 '3TT^?T ^TT^T Trf^T 8/1/2004 Sliii B.K< Rawato couiisel Dr. N.K. Shukla, Addl. chi^t<rt<ill 7TR^if "9 fs^l <pai^l< "^ ^rf^pRT a^fr for the petitioner. Advocate General^ with Shri for thc Statc. Rajcsh Paiidey, Qovt. Advocatel Heard finally. 2. By tiiis writ petitioii i.1]nder Article 226/227 of ttie Constitution of India, the petit|.oner has chRllenged tlie order dated 5/8/2002 (AnnexLire-P/p) passed by respondent no/2 whcrcby thc tax of dcli.ixc bus ^ias bccn lcvicd on thc ordinaiy veliicle assuuiiiig it lo be delux^ bus. 3. It is submitted by tlie leal that the route on whidi'ffiie ve and a peniiit Anne^ure-P/1 isj by the State Tran^port Autho| med eounsel for tlie petitioner licle is plying is aii iiiter-State ^fc issued. This penait is issued rity^ Orissa and is onlv to be counter-signed by €ieStabe Tr^nsport Authority, Raipur. It is further submltted tfaat on tfae t^p of the permlt, It. is wrltten as [TiN^'^Ri^ XI-HC-22 s^T^r^T ^jch N|^T ^^T^5 ^fiW^ IB ^ ^^ 'H"^ v<'4I<41<n^, 'gT^ftWT^, fa<y11^^< 3fft?T 1^ra? Wff^TT^Fira?' *'*^ *^"V(T^ 200 I^F^T 3?H^?T ^<ff^R'HfeT ~z cbi^I<n<flrt HI^QlI "^ f^^il <r^^l< ^ 3Tf^P=T W^T Ordinary Service. Tt has l^ Aiinexure-P/2 by the State Tratisport 4. It is contended by the leajmed counsel for the petitioner tbat uudcr Section 3 of tU Adhlnlyam, 1991, the tax is to 5. Sub-section (1) of Sectior i^ reievmit mid is quofed below pe tmposed. 3 ofttie aforesald Adhiniyam "3. Levy oftax on ^.otov Vehiol®®- (1) A tax shall be levied on ev^ kcpt for usc in thc S|1 ui the First Schedul^: Provided llial iii llie| or withouf attachniejnt motorcars,tlie tax s1 specified in the Seco| Provided furttier fti£ veliicle passing thr{ nianufacturer to a d|e certillcate of registt exceeding one niontlji, one third of the tax it> 6. It is further cqiifended tl^at thetaxchargeable^shallbe as per Article D/(d}(4) of First S ^en coiinter-signed so vide Authority, Raipur, e M.P. Motoiyaii Kai'aclhaii ;ry motor vehicle used or tatc at thc ratc spccificd case of uiolorcycleB willi nt, invalid carriages and lall be levied at the rates [id Schedule; it in respect of a niotor ^ugh fbe State froni a ?aler under a teinporaiy 'ation for a period not the rate oftax shall be >ayable for aquai'ter.77 hedule as aniended by the Act ^-^. -^•n^^ Tn^.'^n^? r XI-HC-22 3?T^T^T f<-iich ^RWW^T ^^? ^i^Krt^, ^Ti1^4j(o, FaKni^y ^i^r v^K Hl^<?rl| 'g^^—*———***"—"'*"*'*'^""^p^ 200 'I^^T' ^T^?T ^CT^R ^fea -3- No.26 of 1991 and M.P. Act peniiit is for ordinaiy service^i No.27 of 1994 and since tlie the tax has to be for that of ordinary ser^ice. It is olso co|ntended that respondent no/2 has iiot at all considcrcd that t4e pcroiit is for ordinai^ scrvice and tie tias failed to conslder tlie order lev^ring tlie tax of (feluxe bus assummg it to be deluxe bus. 7. The aforesaid Article IV(d) and is quotcd bclow: arld of velik;tes of otlier |y as ordinary service Iwhich the vehicle is where the perinit is "IV. (d)(4)- Iii respec^ Stafe pennitted to p} for eveiy passengerl perraitted to carry counter-signed-^ (i) Uuder a Reciprpc^l Agrceiiient for eacti IQ' knis. pr I per morith. (ii) Without a Rejsi Rs. 1 l.OQ^^per seat pet for eacirtlO knis, or per niontti^ chi4{d4)T1 *ii^ciT^ l^st iF^^K ^3?f^FT3^T ttie provision and just passed 4) ofFirst SchedLile i^ relevant ^l Agreement-Rs.6.60 jpart thereof per seat ^iprocal Agreenieot- t' month plus Rs.6.60 Ipart. thereof per seat^ [Tft^ ^Psl^ XI-HC-22 '3^? ^}^w^, ^•al^^Ko, [^<ni^li< ani[?r 'V^K Kltldl sbNi*"""""""""""""""""""^ 200 I^^ST' STT^TM f<-1l5h 5h^lct» <ii^a ^ ^ ^^ ^ 3T[^T ^<iT^R ^T^r -^- 8. On penisal of the order mpiigned, it appears that the provisions of the Adhiniyain 4ave not been considered and discussed at oll< Even the certi: of the order, goes to show that full scap paper. It is tlle dut^ infrastructure and atleast full led copy, which is a photocopy tpie Authorit}^ does not have thc of ttie State to provlde an 9. Havuig considered the f^cts and circumstances ofthe case suid inaterial 6n record, inj unpugncd ordcr i^ sct-asidc. Tl| decide airesli afler lieariiig tlie 10. The petition is allowed. <=hi4Fd^1ri ^l^<yff ^ fe^t <P»l^l< i? ^rf^w 3^T ;ap paper. the opinion of this Court. the jic niatt.cr i8 rcniandcd back fo jai-ties coiicenied. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge [^t^sr^