ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.

(2.) IN this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.3.1984. Annexure P11, passed by respondent No. 4, the District Transport Officer, Patiala, creating a demand of road tax amounting to Rs. 52,000/- in respect of Bus No. PNC-3503 for the period from 3rd quarter 1981-82 to Second quarter 1983-84. The petitioner also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 4 to issue clearance certificate with a further prayer to direct respondent No. 2 to issue permits held by the petitioner.

(3.) IN the year 1957, the petitioner became a lunatic. He remained admitted at the Mental Hospital, Amritsar, as an indoor patient for a long time. Ultimately, he was declared incurable. Subsequently, by order dated 25.09.1980. Annexure P4, Smt. Daya Wanti widow of Ram Saroop, mother of the petitioner, was appointed guardian of his person and property. The petitioner entered into a partnership on 27.8.1979 to form a Transport Company for passenger Transport in the name of M/s Roshan Lal son of Ram Saroop of Ramgarh, Distt. Patiala, Head Office Samana, Distt. Patiala. Subsequently, one Gora Lal son of Kaka Mal, respondent No. 6, who knew about the lunacy of the petitioner got a permit issued from the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, in the name of the petitioner, bearing permit No. 642/52, for Nabha to Samana via Channo route, against the original permit No. 642/53 (Kacha), held by the petitioner. The permit issued in respect of Bus No.PNT-4237, was never owned by the petitioner. Gora Lal, taking advantage of the lunacy of the petitioner, started operating the bus against the permit issued in the name of the petitioner. The fraud was continued to be perpetuated by respondent No. 6. Other buses were also purchased in the name of the petitioner. It is, however, the case of the petitioner, as pleaded in the writ petition, that the petitioner owned only one bus bearing No.PUV-3672. In respect of this bus, the petitioner was granted a temporary permit No. 642/53 which was to expire on 1.12.1981. This bus was impounded on 2.12.1981 for non payment of road tax. The bus was released on 22.3.1982. Thereafter, the bus remained off the route and no further permit was granted. In spite of the aforesaid, the respondents have issued order dated 12.3.1984, Annexure P11. Order dated 12.3.1984 was passed on the application of the petitioner seeking exemption from the payment of tax.