Mini Dileep v. Transport Officer

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Antony Dominic
Dama Seshadri Naidu
Judgment Date: 2016-07-27
Court Decision / Holding: Writ appeals dismissed; however, the respondent in WA 702/2014 is entitled to protection against coercive revenue recovery proceedings until the Deputy Transport Commissioner decides the statutory appeal.
Final Disposition: Writ appeals dismissed; protective relief granted to respondent against coercive revenue recovery until statutory appeal is decided

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mini Dileep

Respondents

The Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam
The Deputy Transport Commissioner Central Zone, Ernakulam
The Transport Commissioner, Trans Tower, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Government Pleader

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri O.D. Sivadas

Case Synopsis & Summary

This common Kerala High Court judgment arises from writ appeals challenging motor vehicle tax demands. The petitioner Mini Dileep, a stage/contract carriage operator, contested the Department’s tax demand for the period 01.10.2009 to 30.06.2011 and the orders of the Regional Transport Officer, Deputy Transport Commissioner and Transport Commissioner directing payment. The matter centers on the outcome of a single-judge decision in Mini Dileep v. Transport Officer (2013), which quashed the challenged orders and remanded the tax assessment to the RTO for redetermination in light of the observations. In compliance with that judgment, the authorities issued a revised demand for a narrower period (01.10.2009 to 31.08.2010). The petitioner then challenged that revised order in WP(C) No. 163 of 2014, which was disposed of by a judgment dated 02.01.2014, and the Department subsequently filed these intra-court appeals on 14.02.2014 against the 2013 judgment. The chronology reveals alleged incongruities in the sequence of decisions and concerns about collateral challenges and efficacious remedies. The Division Bench ultimately held that the technical hurdles were insurmountable and declined merits consideration, dismissing the writ appeals as not maintainable, while protecting the respondent in WA 702/2014 from coercive revenue recovery until the statutory appeal is decided.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Two wrongs cannot make a right
Vigilance is the watchword for the citizen and even for the government

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the Department’s revenue actions must be evaluated in light of administrative practicality and the need to curb misuse of permits. They contended that the earlier Mini Dileep ratio cannot be ignored and that collateral challenges are inappropriate; with thousands of vehicles and limited manpower, the Department’s demand for tax during the alleged idle period is reasonable and justified, supported by numerous decisions cited by the Government Pleader. The department emphasized the lack of a direct challenge to the legality of the demands beyond the procedural hitches and urged the court to maintain the order’s validity.

Contentions of Respondents

Mini Dileep contended that the 2013 Mini Dileep judgment quashed the orders and remanded for fresh computation, effectively applying the ratio to tax demands. He argued that revisions to the period and subsequent departmental actions were inconsistent with the single-judge decision and that there exists an efficacious remedy—the statutory appeal—already endorsed by this Court in related matters. The respondent also highlighted that Mini Dileep’s applicability extends to contract carriages and warned against undermining the remedy structure through collateral challenges.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mini Dileep v. Transport Officer	2013 (2) KLT 97	Positive	The judgment explicitly references Mini Dileep as the controlling ratio applicable to the case and applies its principles, including remand for redetermination, and later notes its applicability to contract carriages.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2016/5TH SRAVANA, 1938 WA.No. 335 of 2014 () IN WP(C).6225/2012 ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6225/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19-06-2013 APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C): ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 2. THE DEPUTY TRASPORT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ## RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: --------------------------------- MINI DILEEP, KAVILKANDATHIL, NORTH GATE, VAIKOM. R BY SRI.O.D.SIVADAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-07-2016, ALONG WITH WA. 702/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 335 of 2014 () : 2: ## **APPENDIX** ## APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.10.2011. ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD EVIDENCING SERVICE OF REVISED DEMAND DATED 12.12.2011. ANNEXURE III : TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED ORDER ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 18.10.2013. ANNEXURE IV : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 163/2014 DATED 02.01.2014. ANNEXURE V : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.02.2014. ANNEXURE VI : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD (EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF NOTICE) DATED 25.02.2014. ANNEXURE VII : TRUE COPY OF THE TABULATION OF CHECK REPORT OF VARIOUS OFFENCES DETECTED AND COMPOUNDED FOR PLYING OF TRANSPORT VEHICLES WITHOUT VALID PERMIT. ## RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. rv ## ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.A. Nos. 335 & 702 of 2014 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of July, 2016. ## COMMON JUDGMENT ## Dama Seshadri Naidu,J. Both these writ appeals arise out of W.P.(C) Nos. 6225 of 2012 and 30169 of 2013 filed by the sole respondents in the writ appeals. As the writ petitions were allowed, the Department has filed these intra-court appeals. 2. To put the issue in perspective, we may refer to the chronology of events in both the writ appeals. As for W.A. No. 335 of 2014, to begin with, the authorities demanded the respondent, a stage carriage operator, to pay tax on his vehicle for the period from 01.10.2009 to 30.06.2011. But the respondent maintained that he had to pay the tax for the period from 01.10.2009 to 31.08.2010. The claim rejected, the respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority, who too refused to intervene. The respondent then filed W.P. (C) No.6225 of 2012, which a learned single Judge disposed of on 19.06.2013 through a judgment known as Mini Dileep v. Transport Officer[1] . The judgment, among other things, directs the authorities thus: 8. There is no option but to quash Exhibits P2, P3 and P5 orders passed by the Regional Transport Officer, the Deputy Transport Commissioner and the Transport Commissioner and I do so. The assessment of tax under the Act for the period demanded (01.10.2009-30.06.2011) is remanded to the Regional Transport 1 2013 (2) KLT 97 W.A. Nos.335 & 702 of 2014 : 2 : Officer who shall complete the exercise in the light of the observations above. The liability to pay tax at the rate applicable to a transport vehicle shall be re-determined afresh with due notice to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 3. As seen from the Annexures filed along with I.A. No. 656 of 2014 by the Department, the authorities, in compliance with the judgment, passed Annexure III order revising the demand for tax for the period from 01.10.2009 to 31.08.2010 instead of 01.10.2009 to 30.06.2011. 4. Still aggrieved, the respondent questioned Annexure III order in W.P.(C) No. 163 of 2014, which was disposed of through Annexure IV judgment dated 02.01.2014. Thereafter, inexplicably, the Department has impugned the judgment dated 19.06.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 6225 of 2012. In fact, it filed the appeal on 14.02.2014, despite complying with the judgment. 5. As for W.A. No. 702 of 2014, the respondent, a contract carriage operator, faced similar demand and rejection from the Department as in W.P. No.335 of 2014. He filed W.P.(C) No. 26146 of 2013, which a learned single Judge disposed of through a judgment dated 25.10.2013: The direction to the authorities was to consider the writ petitioner's case keeping in view the ratio of Mini Dileep. 6. As is evident from the record, in compliance with the said judgment, the Joint RTO passed an order on 21.11.2013 rejecting the W.A. Nos.335 & 702 of 2014 : 3 : respondent’s claim on the premise that Mini Dileep would not apply to contract carriages. Further aggrieved, the respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 30169 of 2013. This Court, through its judgment, dated 06.12.2013, observed that the respondent had an efficacious alternative remedy; accordingly, it relegated him to a statutory appeal. That apart, the learned Single Judge has also clarified that Mini Dileep does apply to contract carriages, too. 7. In compliance with the judgment, dated 06.12.2013, the respondent on 21.12.2013 filed before the Deputy Transport Commissioner a statutory appeal, which is pending. But, curiously, the Department came up with this intra-court appeal on 21.05.2014 against the judgment, dated 06.12.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 30169 of 2013 —while a statutory appeal is pending. 8. The incongruity is evident in both the appeals: in the former appeal, the impugned judgment no longer survives; the authorities had complied with it and passed orders. Those orders were again challenged; it resulted in a subsequent judgment, dated 02.01.2014. But the subsequent judgment, which actually holds the field, has not been challenged. And in the latter appeal, the judgment has already been acted upon, and a statutory appeal is pending. In fact, the impugned judgment is adverse to the respondent, who, in step with it, filed a statutory appeal. The Department is hardly aggrieved. 9. Compendiously viewed, any effort on our part at this stage to W.A. Nos.335 & 702 of 2014 : 4 : consider the appeals on merits would have an impact of rendering findings either in the previous proceedings or in the subsequent proceedings, as the case may be, nullified or interfered without a proper challenge concerning those proceedings. Such a collateral challenge is impermissible. 10. To give credit where it is due, we place on record our appreciation that the learned Government Pleader has diligently, passionately presented the matter and urged us to interfere. According to him, there are over eighty lakh vehicles plying on the roads in the State of Kerala. Given the limited manpower, each road transport officer has to keep vigil over about 14,000 vehicles. Taking advantage of the Department's logistical limitations, some operators have unscrupulously been operating two, three, or even more vehicles, but under the cover of only one permit. The learned Government Pleader, in that context, has submitted that the Department’s demand that the operators pay the tax for the alleged idle period is sensible and justified, too. He has cited many decisions to support his submissions —a sign of his sedulous efforts. 11. As to the learned Government Pleader’s fervent plea about the alleged abuse by the transport operators, we only observe that the Court is concerned with the law and its violations. To match one wrong, we cannot commit another wrong. Two wrongs, trite to observe, can never make one right. To conjure up imagery, we only W.A. Nos.335 & 702 of 2014 : 5 : say a cat cannot afford to close its eyes; then rats will have a rhapsody. Vigilance is the watchword—for the citizen and even for the government. 12. In the above facts and circumstances, we willy-nilly hold that the technical hurdles are insurmountable, and they go to the root of the matter disabling us from considering the matter on merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ appeals, essentially because they are not maintainable having already been acted upon or complied with. No order on costs. We, however, observe that the respondent in W.A. No. 702 of 2014 is entitled to protection against coercive revenue recovery proceedings until the Deputy Transport Commissioner decides the statutory appeal. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE. Rv W.A. Nos.335 & 702 of 2014 : 6 :