ORDER
R.S. Garg, J.
1. On 24-12-1994, the respondent No. 3 (Transport Inspector Flying Squad) checked the bus of the petitioner and prepared checking report on the spot observing that the bus was being plied without documents. According to the petitioner, the registration of the vehicle, fitness certificate and the permits were produced before the officer but despite production of the valid documents, the vehicle was seized and kept in the police station. A challan was filed before the Motor Vehicle Magistrate, Raipur. Petitioner submits that the driver of the vehicle was given to understand that if he pleads guilty, the bus would immediately be released on payment of Rs. 1,000/-otherwise the vehicle would be kept under seizure. Forced by the circumstances, the said driver pleaded guilty. Accordingly fine of Rs. 1,000/-was imposed, the said fine was deposited but the vehicle was not released, According to the petitioner, without issuing a notice to the petitioner or without passing an assessment order or without giving him proper opportunity to produce the relevant documents, the Taxation Officer directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 27,600/- as tax/penalty. The officer informed that if the said amount was not paid, the vehicle would not be released. The petitioner, thereafter deposited the amount, got the bus released and filed the petition before this Court for quashment of the order, if any, by which the amount of Rs. 27,600/- was recovered from the petitioner and for the refund of the same. With the petition copy of temporary permit valid for the period between 27-9-1994 to 23-1-1995 for the route Rourkela to Bhilai is also produced before this Court.
2. In the return filed by the State, correctness, validity and genuineness of the said permit Ex. P/1 has not been challenged. The contention of the State is that as the document was not produced at the time of the inspection or before the Magistrate First Class or before depositing the said amount, the authorities were well justified in recovering the amount. Plea of alternative remedy of appeal is also raised and simultaneously it is said that the petitioner can move an application under section 14 of M. P. Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 for refund of tax. The respondents submit that the petition has no merits.
3. It is not in dispute before me that on 24-12-1994, petitioner’s bus was checked, petitioner’s driver pleaded guilty before the competent Magistrate and the petitioner also deposited the amount of Rs. 27,600/- with the taxing officer.
4. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority. Section 207 of the Act provides that any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of section 3 or section 4 or section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route, he may seize the vehicle for its temporary safe custody. If the officer who checked the vehicle found that it was plying without a permit then he was justified under the provisions of section 207 read with section 66 that at the time when the vehicle was being plied the driver or the person in charge of the vehicle was not, at the said time, possessed of valid documents. Section 16(3) of M. P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam provides that the Taxation Officer or any officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used without payment of tax, penalty or- interest due, may seize and detain such motor vehicle and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps as may be considered proper for the temporary safe custody of such motor vehicle and for the realization of tax due. A plain reading of the section would show that if the officer is satisfied or has reason to believe that the vehicle is being plied without payment of the tax, that is without holding a valid permit, then he can detain the bus for its custody and for realization of the tax due.
5. Sub-section (4) of section 16 provides that where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (3) of section 16 of the Act, the owner or the person in charge of such vehicle may apply to the Taxation Officer or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and if such authority or officer after verification of such documents, is satisfied that no amount of tax is due in respect of that vehicle, may by an order in writing release such vehicle. Sub-section (4) clearly provides a right to the owner or the in charge of the vehicle to produce the necessary documents before the Taxation Officer to show that the vehicle was not being plied without payment of the tax, or on the date of seizure and the detention of the vehicle the tax was not due. Sub-section (3) of section 16 of M. P. Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 is an addition to section 207(1) of the Act and not in its derogation. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the power is given to the police officer or any officer authorised while under section 16, the power is given to the Taxation Officer or any other officer authorised by the State. The effect is the same that a vehicle would not be permitted to ply on the road without a valid permit or without payment of the tax. The law nowhere says that if a person who holds a valid permit and has paid the dues required under the law, if at the time of checking was not possessed or was not having in his possession valid permit, would still be liable. Sub-section (4) of section 16 of Karadhan Adhiniyam protects such persons. Such owner or in charge of the bus can always satisfy the taxation officer that at the time-of the checking seizure and the detention of the vehicle though the valid documents were not with the vehicle but in fact the valid documents were held by the owner/in charge.
6. Section 130 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that the driver of a motor vehicle on demand by any police officer in uniform, produce his licence for examination. It also provides that the owner of a motor vehicle or in his absence the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle, shall on demand by a registering authority or any other officer of the motor vehicle department duly authorised in this behalf, produce the certificate of insurance of the vehicle and, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, also the certificate of fitness referred to in section 56 and the permit, and if any or all of the certificates or the permit are not in his possession, he shall, within 15 days from the date of demand submit photo copies of the same, duly attested in person or send the same by registered post to the officer who demanded it. Sub-section (4) of section 130 provides that if the licence or the certificates or the permit as the case may be are not at the time in the possession of the person to whom demand is made, it shall be a sufficient compliance with this section if such person produces the licence or certificates or permit within such period in such manner as the Central Government may prescribe, to the police officer or authority making the demand.
7. Reading of this provision would show that non-possession of the documents in itself would not lead to the penal consequence but penalty can be imposed only if the person does not hold the valid documents. The law clearly provides that if at the point of checking seizure or detention the person liable to produce the documents is unable to produce, then within the period fixed, he may produce the documents to avoid the penalty or the penal consequences.
8. It appears that on 28th, the driver pleaded guilty. The plea of guilt on part of the driver would not lead to an irresistible conclusion that the owner did not hold and possess valid permit. It is to be seen that the vehicle was seized on 24th, upto 28th the vehicle remained in custody of the departmental officer. On 28th according to the petitioner, he was forced to deposit the amount while according to the State, the petitioner voluntarily deposited the amount. The amount of Rs. 27,600/- was deposited. As no challenge is thrown to the permit Annexure-P-1 it has to be accepted that the petitioner held a valid permit for the period between 27-9-1994 to 23-1-1995 for the route Rourkela to Bhilai between which the vehicle was seized. The objection of the State is that the petitioner be driven to an appeal or be forced to file an application under section 14 of M.P. Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 for refund of the tax/penalty illegally recovered. The State also submits that as the amount has already been deposited it must be held that the petitioner was not possessed of a valid permit. So far as the question of valid permit is concerned, the objection can be straightforward ruled out in view of Ex. P/1. In a democratic set up where the State is formed for the people it is not expected that the public servants would act in such a highhanded manner. When the facts are brought to the notice of the competent court and the State is not in a position to challenge the correctness of the statement made by the complainant/petitioner, it is expected of the authorities that to maintain the dignity of the judicial system and to show their honesty they would come out with a straight case. In a case like present, it is expected of the State and authorities that they would open their cards and give assurance to the Court that the amount illegally recovered would be refunded to the petitioner without any demur. Justifying an action like present, would clearly show that the authorities are not honest to the duties assigned to them. Shri Gupta submits that for lapses on part of one officer the State cannot be condemned. True it is, but unfortunately the return has been filed by the State Government to protect such an officer who is still not ready to say before the Court that the State is ready and willing to refund the amount illegally recovered or the amount which was later on detected to be illegally recovered. The authorities cannot coerce a citizen to pay what is not due or legally recoverable.
9. The facts clearly show that the petitioner was holding a valid permit. If he held a valid permit the penalty/tax neither could be imposed nor could be recovered.
10. At this stage, reference to section 8 of M. P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 is also a meant. Section 8 provides that before recovering the tax of imposing the penalty, the taxation officer/authority shall issue a notice to the owner/in charge of the vehicle and after providing him a proper opportunity shall determine his liability. With the return no orders regarding assessment have been filed. This clearly shows that section 8 was not complied with. Shri Gupta submits that if the petitioner voluntarily deposited the amount of Rs. 27,600/- with the authority, the State or the officer were not required to make any probe into the matter. I am not on the propriety of the demand or deposit of the tax, I am on the propriety of the subsequent proceedings. Even assuming some body under the forced circumstance or for compelling reasons or to take proper safety of his vehicle under a misapprehension of law deposits the tax, it would not give an authority to the State to keep the tax in its pocket and not return the same even when it is found that it was wrongly paid or illegally recovered.
11. The facts clearly show that the petitioner was possessed of a valid permit. A tax penalty could not be imposed. Assuming there were some lapses on part of the petitioner that he did not show the valid permit to the authority either at the time of checking or any subsequent stage, the same would lose its importance because before this Court, the facts are clear and the State is still not ready and willing to say that they are liable to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner. When the facts are clear and float on the surface of the record, this Court would not be justified in asking the petitioner to exhaust alternative remedy. The plea of alternative remedy ordinarily is a plea in equity or when some authority is required to make a fact finding investigation. In the instant case, nothing of the sort is required to be done. The facts are clear. For a legal provision, the matter would not be referred to an authority subordinate to this Court for its interpretation. The authorities are liable to refund the amount of Rs. 27,600/-.
12. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner within a week from the date of production of this order, recovered by them under receipt No. 61 of book No. 3761.
13. Looking to the totality of the circumstances and also considering that the petitioner did not produce the permit before the authorities under section 16(4), the parties must bear their own costs.