IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2064 of 2007 Date of Decision: 2.1.2008 ________________________________________________________________ Pancham Chand … Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Ors … Respondents. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Mohal Goel, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). The petitioner is the owner of Bus No.HP-53-0971. This Bus was granted Stage Carriage Permit to run on Palampur – Chadhiar Route in District Kangra. The route permit was valid up to 14.9.2009. According to the petitioner, he had not paid his Special Route tax and also not obtained the fitness certificate and, therefore, he was not plying this bus after 22.10.2005. According to him on 29.3.2007, when the Bus of the petitioner was parked at Deo Gram, the bus was challaned by respondent No.2 on various - 2 - grounds. Thereafter the bus was impounded. After the bus was impounded, the petitioner deposited 25% of the Special Road Tax and submitted indemnity bond that he would pay the balance in monthly instalments in terms of sub-section (6) of Section 7-A of the H.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The stand of the petitioner is that he informed the respondent No.2 about this fact but his bus was still not released. This petition was contested by the respondents and the respondents submit that the petitioner was in fact plying the bus without fitness certificate and without having paid Special Road Tax ( for short: SRT) and, therefore, the vehicle was impounded. A perusal of the challan Annexure P2 shows that the vehicle was challaned since the documents, such as, registration certificate, time table, driving licence of the driver, insurance certificate, SRT payment and token tax have not been paid. It is also apparent that an opportunity was given to the petitioner to appear before the authority on or before 23.4.2007. Though the petitioner claims that he is in possession of all the requisite documents, till date no such documents have been produced in Court. We cannot hold that the petitioner was wrongly challaned. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has deposited 25% of the tax and given indemnity bond in terms of sub-section (6) of Section 7A of the Act, which reads as follows:- - 3 - ` “(6) Where an owner makes default in the payment of tax or penalty under this Act, for a continuous period of two months or more and makes a request to allow him to deposit the tax and penalty due, in instalments, the taxation authority may after obtaining surety bond equal to the amount of tax or penalty due from him, allow such owner to deposit the outstanding tax and penalty thereon, in six monthly instalments, subject to the condition that such owner deposits twenty five percent of the amount of tax and penalty due, immediately as the first instalment.” Without entering into the dispute as to whether the petitioner had informed the respondent No.2 about deposit of the tax or not, we are of the view that since this amount has now actually been deposited, the bus of the petitioner should be released in his favour so that he can ply the same. However, before the petitioner plies his bus, he shall satisfy the respondent No.3 that he has all the necessary documents, such as, fitness certificate, insurance policy, registration certificate etc. It is only thereafter that he will be allowed to ply the bus. However, the State shall not insist on deposit of further SRT since the bus remained impounded during this period. The SRT already payable shall be paid by the petitioner in terms of sub-section (6) of Section 7A of the Act and in case he fails to comply with the said terms, the RTO can take appropriate action in accordance with law. - 4 - The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. January 2, 2008. ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. s.