T LEELAVATHAMMA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ Appeals and Writ Petitions raise a common question and may, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgement. It is enough if the facts in writ Appeal No. 118/76 are stated. The respondent, L. Kondaiah Naidu is a transport operator plying a stage carriage on the route Kovur Taluk Office to D. S. R. G. Hospital via., Government Polytechnic, Pennar Bridge, the Motor Vehicles Inspector inspected the Vehicles. Though Pennar Bridge itself Vehicles Inspector on the basis of statements said to have been made to him, thought that the vehicle was plying on an unauthorised route, Kovur-Nellore, via., Padugupadu instead of Govt. Polytechnic. He submitted a check-report on the basis of which a notice was issued to the respondent by the Regional Transport Authority, Nellore calling upon him to show cause why action should not be taken against him, under S. 60 of the motor Vehicles Act. He submitted his explanation after considering which the Regional Transport Authority exonerated him. the minutes of the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority are as follows:-

(2.) The question for consideration is whether the finding of the Transport Authority in a proceedings under S. 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the holder of a permit has not used or caused or allowed a vehicle to be used in a any manner not authorised by permit is binding on the licensing officer appointed under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act so as to preclude him from raising a demand for tax or additional tax on the basis that the vehicle was used in a manner not authorised by the permit.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader in support of the appeal, submitted that there was not provision in the Motor Vehicles Act or the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act which made a finding arrived at by the Regional Transport Authority in proceeding under s. 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act binding on a licensing officer demanding tax under the motor Vehicles Taxation Act.