Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Tax Recovery letter dated 17.03.2020 issued by the Assistant Road Tax Officer, Badaun/respondent no.3 for recovery of amounting Rs.78689/- (Annexure No.4).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no.3 not to adopt any coercive method against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned Tax Recovery letter dated 17.03.2020 issued by the Assistant Road Tax Officer, Badaun/respondent no.3 for recovery of amounting Rs.78689/- (Annexure no.4).?
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased a Tata Magic vehicle bearing registration No.UP 13D 3872 for business purpose and he was regularly paying road tax. However, on 06.06.2013 the said vehicle was stolen, in respect of which, an FIR was registered as Case Crime No.446 of 2013 under Section 379 IPC on 30.06.2013. Information regarding theft of aforesaid vehicle was given to respondent no.2, but respondent no.2 had issued a tax recovery letter dated 17.03.2020 for recovery of Rs.78689/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after investigation final report has been submitted in the said case. Petitioner has also moved a representation qua which a reminder was also sent on 13.11.2020, which has been appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition but the same is still pending for consideration. Further submission is that as the vehicle was not being used by the petitioner since 2013, there was no occasion for imposing tax upon him.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner has an alternative remedy under Rule 22-A of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 (in short 'Rules, 1998') and he further submits that in case the petitioner approaches respondent no.2, respondent no.2 shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law on his representation, after considering all his grievances.
In view of above facts and circumstances, but without entering into merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under Rule 22-A of the Rules, 1998 by moving his representation (Annexure 5 to this writ petition) before respondent no.2, which shall be considered and decided by him (i.e. respondent no.2) by passing an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter.
For a period of four weeks from today or till the final decision on petitioner's representation, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of tax recovery letter dated 17.03.2020.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021 Manish Himwan