O GANGADHAR Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these Writ Petitions common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are decided by a common judgment.

(2.) The Petitioners earlier filed the Writ Petition No. 34574/1998 and batch contending that they are entitled to alter their motor vehicles by reducing the number of seats under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') and the learned single Judge following the principles laid down by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of T. K. Radhamani v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, AIR 1997 Kerala 85, as confirmed by the Full Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Mohandas v. Registering Authority, Regional Transport Officer, AIR 1998 Kerala 300, held that :

(3.) The learned Judge left it open to the Transport Department with regard to the collection of the tax as provided under the Act, i.e. whether the tax has to be collected on the basis of the seating capacity or on the basis of number of passenger's seats as mentioned in the permits, the said question was not before him, the learned Judge refrained from deciding as to what amount of the tax should be paid by the vehicle owners who have reduced the number of seats, and observed that it is for the authorities to take a decision in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. When it was brought to the notice of the learned single Judge by the Government Pleader that by virtue of the interim directions of this Court, the petitioners are plying the vehicles with the reduced seats and paid less tax, the learned Judge observed that there was no direction by this Court to collect particular amount towards the tax and if the respondents are entitled to collect higher tax, even though the vehicles are running with reduced number of seats, it was left open for the authorities to collect the differential tax in accordance with law.