High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chandra Mohan Agrawal & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 33 of 2006  RD-AH 972 (16 January 2006)
Court No. 10
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33 of 2006
Chandra Mohan Agrawal and another Vs. State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.
Hon'ble P. Krishna, J.
Heard Sri Manish Goyal, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.R. Jaiswal, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents.
The petitioners have approached this Court by filing present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India being aggrieved by recovery notice dated 27-9-2005 issued by respondent authority for recovery of an amount of Rs. 63,113/-. Copy of the notice is Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
According to the petitioners, they purchased a Tata Truck model 1510 in the year 1996 registered at Regional Transport, Mathura being Registration No. UP 85-C 9057. It is pleaded that, at no point of time, petitioners had plied aforesaid vehicle in violation of any provision of law. The impugned recovery in pursuance to the aforesaid impugned notice dated 27-9-2005/Annexure-1 to the petition is being resisted on the basis of vital facts contained in para-5 of the petition which reads:
"That however, the motor vehicle of the petitioner required extensive repairs and could not have been plied without spending a huge amount of money. Under such circumstances, it was thought fit by the petitioner to surrender their motor vehicle and accordingly, the petitioners submitted a declaration in part I of Form F before the respondent no. 2 on 31-3-2002. The petitioners were issued a receipt as provided under Part II of form F. However, the petitioners have lost the said receipt and are not in a position to file the same before this Hon'ble Court. The averment of the petitioner in the present paragraph could however, be verified from register No. 1483, wherein due entry of surrender in the name of the petitioner exists in the office of the respondent no. 2."
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, it is contended that petitioners have surrendered registration certificate of the vehicle and there is no occasion to fasten them with liability of any kind under Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997; the Taxation Officer, Motor Vehicles Department/Respondent No. 2, acted illegally without application of mind in issuing impugned recovery certificate in purported exercise of powers under Section 20 of the said Act and sending the same to District Magistrate, Mathura/Respondent No. 4.
Aforesaid para-5 of the writ petition has been sworn on the basis of personal knowledge and not on record.
On 9-1-2006 Court passed an order which reads:
" In view of the averments made in para 5 of the writ petition, we direct the concerned authority through the learned Standing Counsel Sri M.R. Jaiswal to produce the relevant record, particularly entry no. 1483, referred to in the said para 5 and satisfy the Court that the averments made in the writ petition are correct or not.
Put up as fresh on 16-1-2006."
In pursuance to the aforesaid order, case is being taken up today. Relevant original register, maintained in the concerned office of respondent authority, produced and perused.
We find interpolation in the Register. After Sl. No. 1482 (which is the last entry on the page in question)-bearing signature in red ink-(by same officer)- as is in other entries. At the bottom of this very page-an Entry bearing Sl.No. 1483 finds place but with no signature-in red ink (as in other cases). In fact on top of next page ( of the said register) there is mention of Sl.No. 1483 with signature in red ink-which does not relate to the vehicle of the petitioners.
Learned Standing Counsel further stated that the petitioners have not produced the receipt as they were issued no receipt as provided under Part II of Form-F. False averment is made on oath knowing the same to be incorrect with deliberate intention to mis-lead the Court. According to the learned Standing Counsel, such a pleading is nothing but an attempt to play fraud upon the Court. It is stated before us that Rs. 10/- was required to be deposited and there is no such deposit as required under Rule 22, U.P. Taxation Rules, 1998.
We are not inclined to accept the version of the petitioners in para 5 (aforequoted) in absence of any cogent reason.
Apart from it, we, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, granted time to seek instructions from the petitioners with respect to the above. All that happened before lunch. When the case was taken up after lunch hours, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manish Goyal, Advocate submitted that petitioners do not want to press this petition and are prepared to deposit the amount due against them.
We may also note, as informed by learned counsel for the petitioners, that First Information Report has been filed on 12-1-2006. Copy of the said FIR has been placed before us for perusal. It is addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Highway, Mathura. In view of it, we direct the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Mathura/Respondent No. 3, apart from pursuing criminal action, also to initiate departmental proceedings against the erring official who apparently joined hands with the petitioners in getting aforesaid fictitious entry inserted in the Register.
A statement on behalf of the petitioners through their counsel has been made before us that they shall deposit entire amount due, namely, Rs. 63,113/- within two weeks from today. Apart from the aforesaid amount, petitioners shall also pay, by way of costs, for their misconduct in filing false affidavit before this Court which we quantify at Rs. 25,000/- within aforesaid period. Aforesaid amount shall be deposited with Respondent No. 2. In case petitioners fail to deposit aforesaid amount (as stipulated above), District Magistrate, Mathura/Respondent No. 4 shall recover the same as land revenue. Apart from it, Respondent No. 2 shall be under obligation to inform this Court of non-compliance of the order and this Court shall, in such a contingency, consider for initiating action for contempt for filing false affidavit and abusing the process of the Court. In view of the fact that petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and deliberately made attempt to mis-lead it coupled with circumstance that because of his such mis-deed, an official has to come to Allahabad and public exchequer has been unnecessarily burdened, we find it a fit case to refuse to permit petitioners to invoke our extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India.
Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine, subject to the above directions and the costs (indicated above).
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.