M A AYAZ Vs. STATE TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the first respondent Tribunal confirming the order of cancellation of permit passed by the Regional Transport Authority, the second respondent herein, in respect of the Tata Maxicab, bearing registration No.TN-22-BW-9828.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the second respondent ought to have invoked Section 286(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He had further submitted that the second respondent ought to have noted that the tax, due to be paid by the petitioner, had been paid, along with the penalty. In fact, the petitioner had not defaulted in the payment of tax on the earlier occasions. The non-payment of the tax, by the petitioner, is neither willful nor wanton.