Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 787 of 2021 Petitioner :- Vijay Bahadur Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Challenge has been raised to the recovery certificate dated 22.12.2020 seeking recovery of Rs.2,04,138/- from the petitioner against vehicle registered in his name bearing Registration No.UP-67-T-3098.
3. At the outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised a strong preliminary objection that this is a second writ petition filed for the same cause, inasmuch as, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ Tax No.1316 of 2019 (Vijay Bahadur Vs State of U.P. & 4 Others) which was disposed of by the following order:
"The issue sought to be raised in the instant writ petition is in respect of a recovery letter dated 15th May, 2016, issued by the Taxation Officer of the Motor Vehicles Department at Chandauli, with regard to recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,28,502/-.
Considering his prayer, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the writ petitioner may be allowed to pay the total dues in the following manner:-
In the event, the writ petitioner is able to pay the entire amount of Rs. 1,28,502/-, as demanded in the recovery letter dated 15th May, 2016, in six equated monthly instalments payable on 19th of each successive month, beginning 19th December, 2019, the concerned authority shall not proceed against the writ petitioner. However, in the event of a single default, the protection afforded to the writ petitioner by virtue of this order shall automatically cease and it will be open to the respondent no. 3 or any other competent authority of the State to proceed against the writ petitioner in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly."
4. Meeting the above objection, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that at present a different recovery has been pressed against the petitioner after part compliance made by the petitioner to the first recovery. Also, he would submit that subsequent to the disposal of the earlier writ petition, the petitioner has filed an application under Rule 22A of the UP Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 dated 16.08.2021. Therefore the present writ petition represents a different cause of action and it may be entertained.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the present petition is wholly misconceived and therefore not maintainable. Once the petitioner had taken chance to challenge the earlier recovery and obtained an order from this Court granting indulgence to the petitioner to deposit the defaulted amount in installment, neither there can arise any occasion to the petitioner to again approach the Court with respect to the same recovery nor can the prayer be pressed on pleading based on Rule 22A of the aforesaid Rules.
6. Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 24.9.2021 S.Chaurasia