Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48713-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7963 of 2025 Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. And 4 Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned recovery citation issued undated by the opposite party no.3, which is contained as annexure no.1 to this writ petition. ii. issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the opposite party no.3 not to take any coercive action in pursuance of impugned recovery citation of Rs. 432770/-." 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had bought a public transport vehicle (Bus) UP46T9292, after taking loan from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd./opposite party no. 5. His vehicle suffered an accident and was rendered unroadworthy. An FIR was lodged on 26.08.2020 bearing Case Crime No. 0190 of 2020 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the I.P.C. at Police Station - Shahjad Nagar, District- Rampur. The vehicle was surrendered to the finance company on 24.01.2021 in accordance with the finance agreement. After surrender of vehicle all liabilities of the petitioner for deposit of tax shifted to the Respondent No.5/Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. However, now the Transport Department has issued Recovery Certificate for tax on the basis of which the impugned Recovery Citation has been issued by the Transport Authorities. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Stated has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition saying that the original order passed by the Taxation Officer has not been challenged in the writ petition. Only the Consequential Order/Recovery Citation has been challenged. Hence the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. It has also been submitted that against the order passed by the Motor Vehicle Taxation Officer, the petitioner has statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Act. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as not maintainable. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Darpan Sharma Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench