TANAJI JEEVAPA Vs. DY COMMR FOR TRANSPORT BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of a Motor Vehicle bearing registration No. MYD 6064. The vehicle is normally kept in Karwar Dist. The petitioner sent certain documents relating to the vehicle to the Regional Transport Officer, Bijapur, in April 1977 for issue of a pucca permit granted to him. These documents were sent in response to the communication received ' from the said Regional Transport Officer, Bijapur. In spite of his best efforts the petitioner could not get the return of the documents from the Regional Transport Officer, Bijapur.

(2.) In the meanwhile on 1-8-1977 the petitioner made an application to the Regional Transport Officer, Karwar, the 2nd respondent here in for accepting non-user oi Ms vehicle with effect from 1-8-77 stating that the relevant documents required to surrendered with such an application would be so surrendered after the same was received from the Regional Transport Officer, Bijapur. That application came to be rejected on the ground that it was not accompanied by the documents mentioned in the Government Notification pertaining to grant of exemption from payment of tax. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Belgaum, together with an application for staying the demand notice issued by the 2 nd respondent who had in the meanwhile demanded the tax from 31-10-77 to 31-10-78. In spite of several representatidns made, the 1st respondent appellate authority neither passed any order on the application made for interim relief for staying the demand made by the 2nd respondent nor disposed of the appeal itself. The petitioner again received an endorsement on 5-11-79 demanding the payment of tax in the sum of Rs. 14,155 together with surcharge of Rs. 1832. The demand notice is produced at Ex-E to the petition. It is in these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-appellate authority either to consider his application for interim relief of staying the demand notice of the 2nd respondent-Regional Transport Officer for arrears of tax in respect of his vehicle or for a mandamus disecting the 1st respondent to dispose of the main appeal itself. The petitioner has also asserted in the petition that the fitness certificate of the vehicle expired in October, 1977 itself. This writ petition was filed in July, 1979.

(3.) No formal statement of objections is filed by the respondents. But the learned Government Pleader be appearing for the respondents has sttted on the basis of the records that the appeal filed by the petition er before the 1st respondent appellate authority is yet pending and that no orders have been passed even now on the application made by the petitioner for staying the demand notice issued by the 2nd respondent. I a a therefore constrained to say that the conduct of the appellate authority is far from satisfactory. There was no inhibition, on account the pendency of this writ petition, for thin to dispose of the appeal or the application whichever was the more expedient.