Sri- Mangesh Stridhar Ekale v. besides violative of Article 19 and 21of the constitution of

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH 7 TIIE 22"a DAy OF DECEMBER 2O2S Between: Sri Mangesh Sridhar Ekale. .Petitioner AND The State of relangana, Rep. by its principat secretarJi, Transport (Roads and Buildings) Department, Transport wing, secretariat, Hyderabad & four others. ...Respondents ORDER: Heard sri A.Manikanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for Transport appearing for the respondent Nos.l to 5 and perused the entire material available on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.S herein in seizing petitioner,s Motor car (LMV) \ 2 \ bearing Red.No.MH-12-RF-297O in pursuant to Vehicle Check Report No.310962, dated 03.12.2025 for plying in Telangana for more than one (1) month and demanding to pay Telangana State Life Tax, as illegal and arbitrar5r. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 10877 of 2025 dated 13'10'2025 and requestecl to pass similar order in this Writ Petition'

4.LearnedAssistantGovernmentPleaderforTransportdidnot dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitionerwithregardtothedisposalofW.P.No.loSTTof2025 dated 13.1.0.2025 and requested to pass appropriate orders' In view of the submissions made on both sides and for the

5. reasons ment-ioned in W.P.No.10877 of 2025 dated l3'1O'2O25' this court is of the considered view that the principle laid down in Rdmndth Arumugam Vs The Reglonal Transport Officer' Hgderabadr,therespondentscannotdemandthepetitionerto payLifeTimeTaxonthegroundthatthesubjectvehiclewaskept in the State of Telangana for more than one month' Moreover' as per Section 47 of the M.V.Act, if the vehicle is kept beyond 12 months, the vehicle has to be re-registered in the particular place' ' Unreported orders of this court in WP.No.19141 of 20l:i dated 09.12.2024 In the instant case, the respondents nowhere mentioned that the vehicle was kept in Telangana state beyond twelve months. In view of the s€une, the impugned vehicle check Report No.3 10962, dated o3.r2.2o25 is liable to be set aside and the respondents have to release the subject vehicle to the petitioner. 6. view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned vehicle check Report No.3 10962 dated o3.L2.2o25 and directing the respondent authorities to release the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Motor car (LMV) bearing Red. No. MH- 1 2-RF -297 O forthwith 7. The Registry is directed to annex copy of the order in w.P.No. Lo877 of 2025 dated 13.10.2025 along with this order. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, !t4LS!?$ qlgied, There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// sOr- r. SntDEVt T REGI To, SECTION OFFTCER

1. The Principal Secretary, sport Wing, At Secretari Transport Roads Tran at, Hyderabad, State of The Trans^port commissigne[, Government of Telafigana state, At RTA Complex, Somajiguda, l=lyderabad, T.G. Buildings Department, I13",;Halransport commissioner and SRTA, At RTA comptex, somajiguda, The Regional rransport officer, (East zone)Malakpet, Hyderabad. The Motor Vehicles lnspector, Driving Test rrack, Nagole, RTA, Hyderabad, T.G. One CC to SRI A.MAN|KANTA, Advocate [OpUC] Two ccs to GP FoR TRANSPORT, High court for the State of relangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies (Along with the copy of order dated 30.10.2025, in w.p.No.10g77 ot 2o2sl

7. ,b8 BSR HIGH COURT DATED: 2211212025 CC TODAY T l:. tL ,& + ^.s {rP + tH+ ORDER WP.No.39317 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \\ Y SK, J W.P.No.IOa77 of 2025 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.!o877 of20.25 ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning action of the respondent No.4 in seizing the petitioner's vehicle vide LMV Car bearing Registration No.KA-O1- NB-1141 (Battery operated) and the consequential impugned Memo R.No.873/CL7 /2025 dated 19 .O3.2O25 on the ground that the said vehicle was plying in Hyderabad for more than three months as the same was registered in the State of Karnataka and the said action of the respondents is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.601, Home (Tr.II) Department, dated 27.03.1963 and also contrar5r to the orders of this Court in W.P.No. L9L41 of 2OLs dated 09.12.2024.

2. Heard Sri C.L.N.Gandhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vigneshwar Reddy, learned 2 SK, J W.P.No.1Oa77 of 2O25 Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondents.

3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of Telangana Gas Company having establishments in the State of Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, authorized LPG Distributor for HPCL. The petitioner had purchased LMV Car BMW (Battery Operated) in Karnataka vide bearing Registration No.KA-O1-NB- 1141 (hereinafter referred to as rsubject vehicle') and the said vehicle is totally exempted from payment of motor vehicle tax in the State of Karnataka for Battery operated vehicle and has been using the said vehicle in all three States to all the units wherever they are located in Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the vehicle was seized on 3 SK, J W.P.No. LAA77 of 2025 L5.O2,2O25 while it was being used for the official purpose in Hyderabad on the ground of no proof of payment of Telangana State Motor Vehicle Tax vide VCR No.0198335 by the respondent No.4. The Telangana State Government has exempted the payment of tax in respect of non-transport motor vehicles that were registered and normally kept in any other State in India to facilitate the hassle free travel in the Country. The G.O.Ms.No.6O1, Home (Tr.II) Department dated 27.03.1963 was issued exempting motor vehicle tur in respect of other State Non-Transport vehicles which were registered and normally kept in any other State in India for which ta< has been paid to the Home State and the said G.O is still subsisting and valid.

5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner vide 4 SK' J W.P.No. rca77 of 2025 R.No.87 3lCt7 12025 dated 03'03 '2025 for payrnent of life tax. of Rs'l l,l4'44}/- together with penalty of Rs.9 l,32tJl-. In response thereto' the petitioner submitted his explanation on 06'03 '2025' In spite of the said explanation, without taking into account of the same' the respondent No'3 issued impugned Memo R.No'87 3lCl7 12025 dated 19'03 '2025 and 60 I - ' The directed to pay an amount of Rs ' 1 2 said action is arbitrary and illegal and requested to allow ttre writ petition by setting aside impugned '32 '7 Memo. T'he Learned Counsel for the petitioner 1n 6. support of his contention' placed reliance on the following orders rendered by the Division Bench of this Court:

7.. Rcrmnorth Antmugam - '' ;';;;iort officer' Hsderabad't' Vs' The Regional t Unrepo;:ted orders of this Court '1 ^ ^ , w-p'N.iirlr41 of 2o15 Dated 09'12'2024 5 SK, J W.P.No. rc877 of 2O2S 7 - on the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Transport, basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.3, would subrhit that the petitioner despite being permanent resident of Telangana has purchased and registered the subject vehicle in Karnataka State for the sake of exemption and to evade Life Time Tax in Telangana and the subject vehicle is being used permanently within Telangana since o1 .or.2o24 as the same is evident from police surveillance records captured in Automatic Nurnber plate Recognition cameras around 182 times and 10 Traffic challans were recorded in Telangana and in view of the same the subject vehicle is liable for Life Time Tax under Telangana Motor vehicles rr*"t]o' Act. The petitioner's claim of temp orarrr use of vehicle is incori-rict and the exemption provisions under I t. I :l r1 ,i 6 SK, J W.P.No. 10877 of 2O25 G.O.Ms.No.6O1 Home (Tr-II) Department dated 27.O3. 1963 and other provisions relied on by the petitioner are not applicable, as the said G.O is with rega.rd to quarterly, half yearly and yearly tax which is paid to Home State (Karnataka), whereas the present issue is with regard to Life Time Tax as the subject vehicle is being used in public in the State of llelangana. The respondents are not aware with regard to petitioner's business, establishments 1n Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh travelling extensively to all units.

8. 'lhe learned Government Pleader further submits that petitioner purchased the subject vehicle for meeting their transport requirelnents and it clearl-y demonstrates that the petitioner purposefully purchased and registered the vehicle in Karnataka State where Life-Tax for Battery operated vehicles was exempted at the time of its registration, 7 SK, J W.P.No.1A877 of 2025 during such period ,life tax was being imposed on Battery operated vehicles in Telangana. After registration of the vehicle in Karnataka, the vehicle is very much plying in the State of Telan garra, more particularly in Hyderabad as the petitioner is permanent resident of Hyderabad. The petitioner registered the subject vehicle on 29 .L2.2O23 and immediately entered into Telangana on 01.0 t.2O24. Further, Section 47 of the M.V Act provides the Registered owner to re-assign a new registration mark, where a vehicle has been kept in another State beyond twelve months, that too on production of no-objection certificate issued under Section 48 of the Act. The respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 03.03.2025 for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 06.O3.2025 and as the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, the impugned order was passed on

19.03.2025 demanding the petitioner to pay an 8 . SK, J W.P.No. 1O877 of 2025 arnount of Rs.12,32,76O/- for violations and there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

9. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the subject vehicle bearing registration No.KA-O1-NB-1141 (Battery Operated) and the said vehicle was seized by the respondent authorities on L5.O2.2O25 on the ground that the said vehicle is being used in the State of Telangana for more than three months and thereby the petitioner is liable to pay a life time tax in Telanganzr State. Immediately, the petitigner made application on 27.O2.2O25 to the respondent authorities to release the vehicle. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice in R.No.873/C17 /20256 dated O3.03.2025 for payment 9 SK, J W.P.No.1O877 of 2O2S of life ta:< of Rs. I L,4r,440 I - together with pehalty of Rs.9 L ,32o / -. In response to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 06-03-2025 enumerating the Rule provisions and orders of the respondent in G.O.Ms.No.601, Home (Tr.II) Department dated 22.03.1963. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued impugned Memo No . R. No .87 3 / C LT / 2O2S dated demanding the petitioner to pay Life Tax to an Lg .O3 .2025 amount of Rs. L2 ,32,7 60 / - .

10. The contention of the respondent authorities in their counter is that, the subject vehicre of the petitioner was captured 182 times' from 01.01.2024 to O}.O7.2O25 by the Automatic Nr*il., plate Reorganization cameras installed by the cyberabad and Rachakonda Police commissionerates. In fact the subject vehicle was seized on 1s.o2.2o25 on the ground that the vehicle was being used in Terangana i : i ,l iI II i :i ! i I I ,i I I ! i 10 SK, J W.P.No.l0877 of 2O25 State for more than three months. The respondent authorities without taking into account of the explanation submitted the petitioner, now in their 'counter it is mentioned that the subject vehicle was captured 182 times by the Surveillance Cameras from O1.01.2024 to 09.O7.2025, whereas the'vehicle was seized on 15.02.2O25 and mentioning the date of capture even after filing of the writ petition. The said contention cannot be taken into account as the vehicle vvas purchased on 29.12.2023 and seized on 15.02.2025 on the ground that more than three months the vehicle was plying in Telangana State.

11. Moreover, Section 47 of the M.V Act applies when the vehicle is kept in a State for more than twelve months. Section 47 of the M.V Act read,s as under: ' Assignment of neut registration mark on remoual to another State.-(l) When a motor uehicle registered in one State has been kept in another State, for a peiod" 1l SK, J W.P.No.lO877 of 2O2S exceeding tuelue months, the otaner of the uehicle sh.a,il, within such period and in such form contatning such particalars as maa be prescrtbed by the cental tiiuernment, appla to the registeing authoitg, within whose jurtsdiction the uehicle then is, for the assignment of a new registration mark and shall present the certiJicate of registration to that registering authoritg: registered. in one state has been kept in anoth.er State, foi a period. exceeding twelue months, the owner of the uehicle shail, within such period. and. in such form containing such partianrars as mag be prescibed bg the Central Gouernment, applg to the registering authoritg, within whose jurisdiction the uehicle then is, for the assignment of a new registration mark and shall present the certificate of registration to that registering authoritg: L2. In the instant case, in the show-cause notice R. No.87 3 / C17 / 2025, dated O3.O3 .2025, it is mentioned that the subject vehicle is in usage for more than three (3) months. The respondents in their counter mentioned that iinmediately after purchase of the vehicle it was entered into state of Telangana. There is no bar to a vehicle purchased in another - state from entering Telangana state immediately. Therefore, the contention of the respondents cannot be acceptable L2 SK, J W.P.No.10877 of 2025

13. Moreover, in the orders relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Ramnath Antmugam's case (supra) held that merely on the ground of the vehicle has entered into the State of Telangana, for temporary purpose and limited period, the respondent authorities are not entitled to demand for payment of life tax. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted is as under: *9. In the case on hand, the subject uehicle was registered in the State of Tamilnadu and life time tax was paid to the State of Tamilnadu. The said uehicle has entered into the State of Telangana for temporary purpose and the said uehicle was not re-registered in the State of Telangana. If the said uehicle is reregistered in the State of Telangana a.s per the prouisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is liable for payment of life tax. Merelg on the ground that the uehicle has entered into the State of Telangana, for temporary purpose and limited period, the respondent I 13 SK, J W.P.No. 10877 of 2025 authoitiei are not entitled to demandfor payment of hfe time tax' ; t4. The above said order squarely apply to the facts of the instant case as the subject vehicle was also entered in the State of Telangana for several times on temp oraqt purpose and cannot liable to pay life tax in Telangana State.

15. In view of the principle laid down in Ramnolth Antmuga.m's case (supra), the respondents cannot demand the petitioner to pay Life Time Tax on the ground that the subject vehicle was kept in the State of Telangana for more than three months. Moreover, as per Section 47 of the M.V Act, if the vehicle is kept beyond L2 months, the vehicle has to be re- registered in the particular place. In the instant case, the respondents nowhere mentioned that the vehicle was kept in Telangana State beyond twelve months except surveillance camera footage. In view of the same, the impugned Memo is liable to be set t4 SK, J W.P.No. 10877 of 2025 / ,.& aside and the respond.ents have to release -the subject vehicle to the petitioner L6. In view of the above finding, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Memo R.No.873 / Cl7 /2025 dated L9.O3.2O25. No costs.

17. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Date:30 .1O.2025 JUSTICE K. SARATH