SUDESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of Stage Carriage Bus, bearing registration No. HP-53- 9071, which had a valid route permit No.RP- 20/R/2001 w.e.f. 20.7.2001 to 19.07.2006 (Annexure P-1), which was being plied from Palampur to Manali, later it was extended on 4.10.2001 from Palampur to Chaddhiar which was to expire on 19.7.2006. The fitness of the bus was valid up to 10.7.2006, therefore, the petitioner applied for passing of his bus in question on 19.07.2006 and deposited requisite fee. The SRT was fully paid up to 31.07.2006.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he had made a request to respondent No.3 in the month of July, 2006 for granting permission for getting the bus passed but no response was made by him but on repeated requests, respondent No.3 is said to have retained the route permit for renewal in his office and issued a letter (Annexure P-3) to Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kullu, permitting the passing of the said vehicle, on the condition that all the codal formalities be completed before passing such permission shall be valid for one month from the date of its issue, but the bus was not passed. However, an oral objection was raised that since the vehicle in question was registered with the Registering & Licensing Authority, Kangra, the petitioner should get the same passed there. Again the petitioner contacted the office of respondent No.3, who informed him to bring the bus for passing on 13th & 14th December, 2006 to Kullu but again it was not passed on the same pretext. Ultimately, the petitioner was compelled to send a notice (Annexure P-4) to respondent No.3 with all the details, upon which the bus was passed on 8.1.2007 and the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 informed respondent No.3 about passing of his bus and to renew his permit which was kept pending for want of fitness certificate. On repeated representations to respond, the respondent No.3 vide Annexure P-8 called upon the petitioner to deposit Special Road Tax (SRT), to which the petitioner objected as the route permit remain deposited with respondent No.3 for its renewal and certificate for fitness was delayed as aforesaid. When nothing was done, the petitioner filed the present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ declaring the communication dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No.3 bad in law and that the petitioner is not liable to pay any Special Road Tax w.e.f. 31.7.2006 onwards, till the time route permit of the bus in question was renewed and direct respondent No.3 to renew the route permit, so that the petitioner could ply his bus on the route granted to him.

(3.) 8.2006, qua the bus in question, adjusted the penalty on SRT and on 15.10.2006 passing permission was granted thereafter because he was holding the additional charge of RTO Kullu w.e.f. 16.10.2006 Renewal of the route permit was said to have been held up earlier because of SRT arrears. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant provisions of law which are attracted in the present case.