IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2701 of 2010 ***** Ramanji Pathak, son of Sri Dinesh Pathak, At Bhawanipur, Police Station-Sakari, District-Madhubani at present resided at Lakshmisagar, in the town and District- Darbhanga. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Transport, Patna. 2. The Transport Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Transport Officer, Darbhanga. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Badri Narayan Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, Government Advocate-I ---------- 2. 16.2.2010. This is the second visit of the petitioner to this Court for granting the self-same relief. On the first occasion, this Court on 7.11.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 13022 of 2009 had issued the following directions: - “Considering the grievance of the petitioner it is clear that there is a dispute whether petitioner is required to pay some more amount by way of road tax or penalty. Since petitioner has been apparently paying road tax regularly, it is not proper that the authorities should only sit tight without issuing tax token and without giving any reasons therefor. In the facts of the case, if the petitioner files a representation before the District Transport Officer, Darbhanga asking for issuance of a tax token on the ground that he has paid major part of the road tax and is prepared to pay whatever amount is found due on proper consideration after considering his plea that he is not liable to - 2 - pay any penalty, the District Transport Officer, Darbhanga shall calculate the amount found payable by the petitioner, if any, and raise a demand along with reasons in brief. This should be done within four weeks of filing of representation by the petitioner. If the petitioner deposits the demand raised then tax token should be issued to him immediately. In case he disputes the demand then it will be open for the petitioner to raise his grievance before any appropriate authority or before this Court, in accordance with law.” It is submitted by Mr. Badri Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the aforesaid order the District Transport Officer, Darbhanga has not adjudicated the question as directed by this Court. Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, learned counsel for the State was at a loss to explain why the same has not been done. However, having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Agrawal for the State, it is directed that the District Transport Officer, Darbhanga shall decide the controversy by 25th March, 2010 positively, failing which he shall be liable for contempt of this Court. To cut short delay and avoid any kind of confusion, it is directed that the petitioner or his authorized representative shall appear before the District Transport - 3 - Officer, Darbhanga on 3rd March, 2010 and the said authority shall proceed in the backdrop of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13022 of 2009. Needless to say, the said authority while dealing with the controversy shall act with utmost objectivity following the principles of natural justice. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs. Pawan/ (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)