SURENDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Surendra Sharma for quashing the order dated 6.9.1999 passed by the Member Board of Revenue, Bihar in Case No. 15 -A of 1999 dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner against the order of the Secretary, Department of Transport dated 16.6.1997 in Appeal No. 66 of 1996 under which he has affirmed the order dated 16.9.1996 passed in Case No. 23 of 1996 by the Joint State Transport Commissioner, Patna rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of exemption of taxes with effect from 1.10.1990 till date in respect of the mini -bus bearing registration No. BPQ -5455 belonging to him.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties were heard.

(3.) THE further case of the petitioner is that the Act of 1994 is not applicable in this case and so the demand of the respondent no. 5 is illegal. The intention of respondent no. 5 is also not fair. As per the order of the High Court dated 8.10.1993 he was requested at first to make an enquiry on the application, but without making any enquiry he transmitted the record to the Transport Commissioner. It is further said that as per delegated power, the exemption application was ordered to be heard by the Joint State Transport Commissioner (respondent no. 4). He fixed the matter for hearing on 22.5.1996 after giving notice, but on 22.5.1996 the application could not be heard. However, without giving any intimation to the petitioner of the next date fixed, on 14.6.1996 he (respondent no. 4) passed an ex parte order rejecting his application, without looking into the record and applying his mind. The order of respondent no. 4 was challenged in appeal before the Secretary, Department of Transport (Respondent no. 3) but the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner, hence, preferred revision against the order of respondent no. 3. The revision was heard by the Member, Board of Revenue (respondent No. 2) who dismissed the revision application without deciding the point raised by the petitioner.