IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9933 of 2008 Govind Singh, son of Mungeshwar Singh, Resident of Village - Gandhra, P S - Ragiganj, Dist - Aurangabad - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Magadh Regional Transport Authority, Gaya 3 The Chairman, Magadh Regional Transport Authority, Gaya 4 The Secretary, Magadh Regisional Transport Authority, Gaya 5 Shanti Devi, wife of Surendra Pd Singh, Resident of Village - Tadwan, P S - Rafiganj, Dist - Aurangabad - Respondents ----------- 5 27.11.2008 The petitioner had applied for a motor vehicle permit for running a stage carriage under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1985. Inspite of recommendations being there including recommendations that there were no dues in respect of the petitioner, the grant of permit has been refused on the solitary ground that petitioner was a registered owner of a transport vehicle being BR 26 – 9271 which was a Tata 709 bus. In respect of the said, motor vehicle taxes had not been paid after 2002. The petitioner challenges this denial of permit. He submitted that taxes had been duly paid and he was not in arrears of taxes in relation to any vehicle. A counter affidavit has been filed. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In my view, the writ petition must succeed. Firstly, if a person is a defaulter in respect of payment of tax as levied and imposed under the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1945 then that Act itself provides for mode of recovery of tax in arrears. If liability is created by a special Act and a process for recovery of that liability is provided in the special Act then the authorities must resort to - 2 - procedure as prescribed for enforcement of liability rather than by indirect method of enforcing that liability in exercise of powers under another Act. If such an action is permitted, it is bound to create chaos apart from being impressible in law and this situation is exemplified by this case. Here the motor vehicle taxation authorities have taken no action against the petitioner because they were fully aware that the petitioner was not in arrears of tax. Petitioner, it is now admitted in the counter affidavit by virtue of Annexure-B that he had been prompt in payment of tax in relation to the vehicle that is BR 26 – 9271 and all taxes have been paid upto 02.05.2008, the authorities, under the Taxation Act being aware of this situation, chose not to take any action against the petitioner but regrettably authorities, under a different enactment which neither created the said liability nor provided for its enforcement, raised the boggy and created a situation where petitioner was deprived of his permit without authority of law. In view of the fact that the payment of taxes are now admitted by the respondents, the respondent-authority is directed to proceed with the application of the petitioner for grant of permit and issue the same in accordance with law preferably within fifteen days from the date of production of a copy of this order before the authority. The writ application is, thus, allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)