U. MOHIDEEN PITCHAI Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, calling for the records relating to the order of the Regional Transport Officer, Tirunelveli, in R. No. 22196/B4/97, dated 24.7.1997 and to quash the same and also to direct the respondent herein to accept the surrender of the permit of the petitioner made on 22.5.1997.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that he is the owner of the goods vehicle TN -72/z 680. He applied before the Regional Trans -port Officer, Tirunelveli, for the grant of a National permit in respect of this vehicle to operate of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Pondicherry and Maharashtra States. The application was filed in the year 1994, and the permit was issued by the R.T.O., Tirunelveli, for a period of five years valid upto 5.1.1999. The issue of the national permit is governed by the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, It is said that any state can issue the composite states without getting counter signature from the State Transport Authority of the respective composite states. It is further said that even though the permit will be valid for a period of five years," the authorisation will be valid only for a period of one year and the authorisation will have to be renewed by the primary authority at intervals of one year each. The permit holder has got his own choice either to have the authorisation re -newed for the same composite states or to prefer to have fresh set of composite states seeking authorisation. The composite fee for each State has been fixed by an agreement entered into within the States and the Union Government and at the time of application for the authorisation for composite states, the composite fee should be filed in form of Demand Draft. It is said that as per condition No. 48 incorporated in the case of National permits under Central Motor vehicles Rules, if the authorisation not for re -newed immediately after one year period, the permit will cease to be a National permit and the holder of the permit cannot operate the vehicle in any state outside the primary state until and unless fresh authorisation for the composite States is obtained from the Primary Authority by remitting the composite fee and by filing the application in respect the prescribed form indicating the composite States. It is said that the authorisation of the petitioner which is valid only for one year expired on 5.1.1995 and he did not apply for beyond that period. He confined his operation of the vehicle within Tamilnadu. the vehicles was not found plying -by the Authority in any of the Composite states. While so, the vehicle met with an accident and was damaged on 12.11.1995. Petitioner had paid the tax due to Tamil Nadu for the period upto 30.6.1997. After repair, petitioner resumed service in Tamil Nadu after a period of six months, with the fitness certificate renewed in April, 1996. Due to the condition and age of the vehicle, petitioner thought of disposing the same, end, on 22.5.1997, petitioner surrendered the permit before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Tirunelveli. He also made an application in the prescribed form and intimated that the tax due to the Tamil Nadu has been paid in respect of the vehicle and surrender of the permit may be accepted. Since no orders were passed even after months, tax due for the subsequent quarter also became due. Petitioner paid for the period commencing from 1.7.1977, produced the Demand Draft towards payment of tax, but the same was refused by the respondent office stating that the petition has to remit the composite tax for the other states upto date with penalty and then only the surrender of the permit will be accepted and for Tamil Nadu for the period commencing from 1.7.1997 will also not be accepted. Therefore the petitioner sent a demand draft towards tax for Tamil Nadu for the period commencing from 1.7.1997 by registered post on 6.8.1997. It is said that simultaneously, the respondent also issued a demand -cum -show cause notice in R. No. 22196/B4/97, dated 24.7.1997 totalling a sum of Rs. 72,000 as due payable by the petitioner. In that order, it is said that the said amount is due towards composite feecum -tax to the States of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh Karnataka, Maharashtra and Pondicherry, with penalty. Petitioner seeks to quash the said order on various grounds. In the grounds it is said that after the period of authorisation the vehicle cannot be used in the other states except the primary state and no -body has a case that this vehicle was found in any of the composite states. When there is no authorisation, and when the vehicle could not be used in the Composite States making a demand as tax due for the Composite states is one without jurisdiction. It is on these grounds, the writ petition was filed.

(3.) When the writ petition came for a admission, the learned Additional Government Pleader took notice, and the case was posted for counter. though no counter was filed, he argued the matter on Instructions.