P SRINIVASAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CUM SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY COIMBATORE NORTH COIMBATORE

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-cum- Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, coimbatore (North), Coimbatore, in R. No. 23191/u1/95 dated 24. 8. 1995 and to quash the same and to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's application filed on 23. 7. 1995, for the grant of new public carrier permit in respect of the petitioner's vehicle TNC 5337, forthwith.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle referred to above, which was originally covered by a public carrier permit valid upto 15. 6. 1989. The Fitness Certificate of the vehicle was valid upto 12. 1. 1988 since the vehicle was an old one, petitioner wanted to repair the vehicle for getting renewal of the Fitness Certificate. With that intention he remitted the tax initially for the qusarter ending with 31. 3. 1988 and also for 30. 6. 1988. He could not repair the vehicle since the spare parts were not available. Therefore, he decided to surrender the permit. So, on 23. 6. 1988 he filed an application for surrender of the permit in the prescribed form. The respondent has not passed any Order on the same. Petitioner also surrendered the permit and produced the Registration Certificate of the vehicle for cancellation. He also declared that he is not intending to operate the vehicle on any public road, and the surrender may be accepted. Since no order was passed, petitioner again thought of repairing the vehicle and moved for a fresh permit. Such an application was filed on 27. 3. 1995. On receipt of the said application respondent demanded tax with penalty for the vehicle for the period from 1. 7. 1988 to 30. 6. 1989. That demand is challenged in this writ petition. IN the various ground raised by the petitioner, it is said that when the petitioner himself has surrendered the permit declaring his intention to stop the service, and when he has not taken the vehicle on public road, he is not liable to pay tax. It is further averred that when the Fitness Certificate has already lapsed on 12. 1. 1988, the liability, to pay tax thereafter also will not arise. It is further said that the petitioner was also not heard before the impugned demand was made, and, therefore, it violates the principles of natural justice. Anyway, the application for grant of a new permit should not be stalled merely on the basis of a demand which is illegal. For the above reason, petitioner seeks the assistance of this Court to quash the demand notice.