TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER Vs. JASMIN ROADWAYS PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ appeals are preferred by the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, against the common order dated 30th July, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge allowing Writ Petition Nos.2552 of 1995 and 561 of 1996.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No.2552 of 1995, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.1.1995 passed by the Transport Commissioner in Proceedings R.No.E2/48055/94 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,04,400 being the difference of the tax which had become payable, according to the Transport Commissioner, in view of the fact that after the permit was transferred to the petitioner, he did not immediately obtain the counter-signature and as such, there had been delay in applying for continuance of counter-signature for the period from 13.4.1993 to 12.7.1994. IN the other writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Transport Commissioner to grant counter-signature to the permit.

(3.) THE decision relied upon by the learned single Judge in Taj Mahal Transports (P) Limited, Tirunelveli v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Tirunelveli and another, (1965)2 M.L.J. 453: 78 L.W. 394: A.I.R. 1966 Mad. 8 does not deal with the question of counter-signature. It only deals with what passes to the transferee on the transfer of permit. Similarly, the decision in M.Duraiswamy v. Shri Murugan Bus Service and others, 1986 S.C.C. (Supp.) 1:A.I.R. 1986S.C. 1980: (1986)99 L.W. 468 also deals with the case of counter-signature of the permit relating to the route not covered by the inter-State agreement.