AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon
The petitioner is the registered owner of the bus bearing Reg.No.KL-11C-6300, which was covered by a regular stage carriage permit in the concerned route, which in fact was valid till 19.09.2006. According to the petitioner, pursuant to an accident, the vehicle was garaged and could not be operated with effect from 01/11/2008 and the petitioner had submitted necessary G Form. It is stated that, the vehicle was subsequently dismantled and sold and the Registration Certificate was surrendered before the concerned authorities, applying for cancellation of the same. However, the application preferred by the petitioner was not considered favourably and the first respondent passed an order on 09/11/2010 mulcting a huge liability upon the petitioner towards the arrears of tax, which was challenged by filing an appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner. After considering the merits involved, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed as per Ext.P2 order dated 18/02/2011, the operative portion of which reads as follows :
Under the above circumstances, this authority is inclined to set aside the order of the respondent with direction to verify the service of the vehicle from 1.4.07 during the period for which the vehicle has no valid and effective permit to conduct service. If it is found on verification, that the vehicle did not conduct service during the period in question, and no ''G'' Form filed, Non Transport Vehicle rate tax can be demanded for the period under dispute. The matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, if the registered owner remits the tax in arrear for the period from 1.7.05 to 31.10.05. The appeal is partly allowed and disposed accordingly.
The case of the petitioner is that, pursuant to Ext.P2 order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 application dated 14/02/2012, in tune with the requirements ordered by the appellate authority. The petitioner sought to satisfy the tax at the stipulated rate for the period from 1.7.2005 to 31.10.2005 and the said amount, coming to a total of Rs. 65,000/-, was sought to be satisfied by taking two demand drafts as borne by Exts.P4 and P5, both dated 9.2.2012, the first one for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and the other one for a sum of Rs. 40,000/ in favour of the first respondent. However, the first respondent did not accept the same stating some lame excuses and the petitioner stands confronted with adverse consequences, which made him to appraoch this Court by filing this writ petition.
The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit seeking to sustain the course and events. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the first respondent has given effect to Ext.P2 order passed by the Appellate Authority. In other words, whether the petitioner has satisfied the requirement and is eligible to have the benefit flowing from Ext.P2, alone is the point to be considered.
The version of the first respondent as given in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit is that, nobody has produced the demand draft for the remittance of tax in respect of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL- 11C-6300 for an amount of Rs. 65,000/-, as alleged and hence there is no merit or bonafides in the writ petition.
After going through the materials on record, particularly, the specific pleadings and the supporting documents, this Court finds that Exts.P4 and P5 demand drafts dated 09/02/2012 for the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively were drawn by the petitioner in the name of the R.T.O. The very drawing of the demand drafts by effecting necessary payments to the Bank, is enough to draw a presumption as to the positive act/step being taken by the petitioner to have the benefit considered. Even by the farthest stretch of imagination, nobody can arrive at any contrary proposition to hold that a person who has taken the demand drafts to the requisite extent as borne by Exts.P4 and P5 and has approached this Court by filing the writ petition, is pursuing the matter merely for having some enjoyment in continuing the litigation. The version of the third respondent in the counter affidavit can only be repelled. This Court finds that Exts.P4 and P5 demand drafts are having a validity of six months from 09.02.2012. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the matter was being protracted, the petitioner was compelled to surrender those demand drafts and have got two new demand drafts on 29.06.2012 for an equal amount and is ready to pay the same. In the said circumstances, the first respondent is directed to accept the demand drafts, if at all they are tendered by the petitioner, within ''one week'' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on which event, the matter shall be considered in tune with the direction given by the appellate authority vide Ext.P2. The proceedings shall be finalised in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month thereafter. This Court has not expressed anything on merits as to the claim, which is left open.
The writ petition is disposed of.