I SHAJAHAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge to this writ petition is a. demand notice dated 25/10/2002 issued by first respondent, wherein the petitioner has been directed to pay the tax of Rs. 34,000. 00 for the month of October 2002, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is a State-wide Contract Carriage Permit holder issued by the Kerala State Transport authority, in respect of vehicle No. KL-09-J-1117. The vehicle was under repair and after carrying out the repairs, he took the vehicle for a test drive. When he crossed the state border of Kerala and entered into the state of Tamil Nadu, the subordinates of the motor Vehicles Inspector, K. G. Chawadi checkpost (incoming) the second respondent herein stopped his vehicle and checked the documents and he replied to the authorities that the vehicle was operated only as a test drive. Thereafter, second respondent issued a check report dated 9-10-2002 alleging that the vehicle is operated with 35 passengers without temporary permit and other records. The vehicle was detained by second respondent on the side of the main road from 9-10-2002. The original copies of the Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate, tax Receipt and permit of the vehicle were submitted along with his representation dated 22-10-2002, as contemplated under Section 207 (2) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. The first respondent without considering his representation, issue a show cause notice dated 25-10-2002 as to why a sum of Rs. 34,000/- should not be collected from him for the month of October, 2002. He submitted his reply stating that the amount demanded is very high and requested them to drop further action. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the relief as stated above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel, for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle was operated only as a test drive and the allegation of the second respondent that the vehicle carried 35 passengers without temporary permit, is contrary to facts. He further submitted that even if there was any violation of the conditions of the permit, the respondents cannot demand tax and only a disciplinary action could be taken for suspension or cancellation of licence. He further submitted that the respondents ought to have forwarded the check report to the permit issuing authority enabling them to take appropriate action.