GOPU TRANSPORT Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing. I have heard Mr. N. Gopalakrishnan for the Petitioner and Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel, Govt. Advocate for the Respondent.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition are in short as under: The Petitioner is a registered owner of goods vehicle No. TSD 2547, which was covered by a National Permit issued by the Respondent. The Vehicle authorised to operate in the primary State of Tamil Nadu and also in the reciprocating States of Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Pondicherry. The permit of the vehicle was valid upto 27-4-1992. The Petitioner had paid the authorisation fee in respect of the vehicle for the period upto 31-3-1991. The fitness certificate of the vehicle was valid upto 10-5-1990. The Petitioner had paid the tax for the home State of Tamil Nadu for the period upto 30-6-1990.

(3.) In the course of the business, when the vehicle was being operated in Maharashtra State, the vehicle broke down suddenly due to certain defect near Thane on 27-4-1990. In those circumstances, the vehicle had to be towed to the nearest workshop at M/s. Bombay Transport Cooperative consumer Society Limited, Vashi, Thane, Maharashtra State, and the Petitioner attempted to repair the vehicle. However, the spare parts required were not available and in those circumstances, the vehicle could not be repaired and it is still kept at the Bombay Transport Co-operative Consumer Society Limited. The vehicle has not been operated on any public road in India on and from 27-4-1990. In the meantime, the permit of the vehicle, which was valid upto 27-4-1992, has also expired and the Petitioner had not filed any application for the continuance and the authorisation to the reciprocating States beyond 31-3-1991.