TRANS EXPRESS LOGISTICS Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioners herein is that the 1st petitioner is the owner of vehicles bearing Nos.AP39 TB 2139 & AP39 TB 3139 and the same were registered under the name of Trans Express as Private Service vehicle and the 2nd petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP39 TB 4139 and the same was registered under the name of Ghaetre Transport as Private Transport Service vehicle before the 3rd respondent i.e., Deputy Transport Commissioner by paying necessary fee for registration and quarterly taxes without any default. The petitioners entered into agreement with ARJAS Steel Plant for pick up and dropping of the employees from Tadipatri town to ARJAS Steel Plant (hereinafter referred to as Steel Plant) within 5 KMs, on monthly basis. The 1st petitioners vehicles are plying from 2019 and the 2nd petitioners vehicle is plying from 2021 onwards within the home district and without any complaint from any quarter.

(2.) Heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition submitted that on the alleged ground that the petitioners are plying vehicles contrary to the Rules, 1989, a show cause notice has been issued asking the petitioners to explain as to why action should not be initiated against them for violating rules. He further submitted that before issuing show cause notice, the 3rd respondent directed the 4th respondent Motor Vehicle Inspector-I to conduct enquiry and to file a report. Accordingly, a report has been submitted by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent and basing on the said report, the show cause notice has been issued and the petitioners had submitted their explanation to the same raising several grounds. Pursuantly, the impugned order has been passed by relying on the report of the 4th respondent which in fact, the authorities did not serve on the petitioner along with show cause notice. He further submitted that in the order it was mentioned that the 4th respondent has recorded certain statements however the said documents were also not served to the petitioner. Further, the said documents cannot be a base for arriving to a conclusion and for fixing difference tax amount and quarterly tax amount which are exorbitant. The order impugned has been passed behind the back of the petitioner and in clear violation of principles of natural justice, as such, prayed to set aside the impugned order.