G VELAVAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER DHARMAPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was operating a stage carriage holding a transport permit for his route bus bearing Registration No. TN 28/1490 for the route Harur to Dharmapuri (Via) Gopinathampatti Junction Road, Thenkaraikottal, Ramayanalli, Sinthalapadi, Kadathur and Odasalpatti Junction Road. Another vehicle, which is a spare bus bearing Registration No. TDM 1995, is covered by a spare bus permit, which is intended to maintain substitute service in place of the route bus during breakdowns and also to perform service to meet the special needs.

(2.) Tax in respect of the spare bus was paid for the quarter ending 31-3-1994. In order to rebuild the body of the spare bus, the petitioner filed a stoppage report to the respondent on 1-3-1994, intimating that the spare bus will be stopped for repair from 1-3-1994 to 20-3-1994 with an initial fee of Rs. 25/- for stoppage of service for the said period. As the vehicle could not be repaired by 20-3-1994, the petitioner submitted a stoppage report for the spare bus only on 22-6-1994 that the said spare bus could not be operated till 1-7-1994. Alleging that the petitioner ought to have obtained prior permission under Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules for non-operation of the said spare bus, the respondent, by proceedings dated 23-6-1994, demanded a sum of Rs. 18,900/- towards motor vehicle tax for the quarter ending 30-6-1994. Hence, placing reliance on the decision in M/s. Gopu Transport, Madras-83 v. R.T.O., Madras West, reported in 1994 Writ LR 263, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri, the respondent herein, in R. No. 11242/83/94 dated 23-6-1994 and to quash the same on the ground that the failure to obtain prior permission, as contemplated under Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, by itself, even though could be a ground for suspending the permit, cannot be the basis for demand of the impugned tax and contends that in any event the petitioner has not been given a reasonable opportunity as contemplated under Section 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.

(3.) That apart, this Court in M/s. Gopu Transport, Madras-83 v. R.T.O., Madras West, reported in 1994 Writ LR 263, has held as follows : 14. According to Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, it shall be a condition of the permit of every transport vehicle will be so maintained as to be available for the service for which the permit was granted for the entire period of currency of the permit and that the permit is liable to be suspended or cancelled after due notice to permit holder if the vehicle has not been used for the purpose for which the permit was granted for a continuous period of more than ten days during the period for which the permit authorise the use of the vehicle on the road, unless the holder of the permit had obtained in writing the prior permission of the Transport Authority to suspend the service of the vehicle for a specific period exceeding ten days. Thus, Rule 172(6) is only a condition of the permit and any violation of the permit condition would lead to cancellation or suspension under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 172(6) cannot be invoked to collect tax under a different statute viz., Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Act."