E. Ramadoss vs Regional Transport Officer, Nellore

These two petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order, as they are filed by the same petitioner seeking the same relief.

The petitioner is a Motor transport operator, having his office at Madras. His two vehicles , MDH 3510 and MDH 3706, for which he obtained inter-state stage carriage permits are registered in the State of Madras. The period for which the permits were granted expired on 9-2-1968 and he made applications, within the time prescribed, before the Regional Transport Authority, Chingleput, for renewal of the permits. As his applications for renewal of permanent permit were pending consideration, he was directed by the Regional Transport Authority, Chingleput, to apply for temporary permits which he did, and temporary permits were issued for a period of four months valid upto 8-9-1969. These temporary permits were produced before the Regional Transport Officer, Nellore, for his counter Signature on 11-5-1969, and he refused to counter-sign, unless tax is paid to this state also. The petitioner was also informed, by a memo dated 17-5-1969 that the exemption granted under the inter-State agreement will not apply to temporary permits and, therefore tax will have to be collected from him by this State also. It is against, that memo that the petitioner filed W. P. No. 1876 of 1969. The other Writ Petition (W. P. No. `399/70) is filed by the petitioner, as the renewal of the permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Chingleput, has been counter signed so as to make the permits valid from 18-3-1970 to 9-2-1973 in this State.

These two petitions are resisted by the respondents mainly on the ground that the notification issued u/s 9 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is applicable only to those who obtained pucca permits and not to those who run the vehicles on temporary permits and as such, the petitioners cannot claim exemption by virtue of the said notification. In view of what is contended by the respondents, it is necessary to notice the notification, which is in the following terms:--------

"In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-s. (1) of S. 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (Andhra Pradesh Act 5 of 1963), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, hereby exempts from payment of the tax leviable under the said Act, all stage carriages, public carriers and private carriers covered by the counter-signature of permanent, permits, which are registered in the State of Madras and operating on routes lying partly in the State of Andhra Pradesh and partly in the State of Madras:

Provided that:-------

The route is recognised by both the States to be a route as aforesaid;

Every such motor vehicle is operating in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted as a result of an agreement arrived at between the two States; and

The tax leviable in respect of every such motor vehicle under any law for the time being in force in the State of Madras has been paid in full in that State.

It is true that the petitioner was granted only temporary permits; but they were granted, as his applications for renewal of pucca permits were pending consideration. The grant of renewal of pucca permits to the petitioner in respect of the two vehicles in question was ultimately decided by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras on 4-2-1970. The tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and directed the renewal of the permits by the authority concerned for a period of five years from 10-2-1968. the date on which the permits had expired. It was observed by the Tribunal that "the moment the permit is renewed, the temporary permit under which the appellant operates his stage carriage service will cease to exist." Having regard to the decision of the Tribunal, the renewal of the pucca permit was accordingly made by the Regional Transport Officer, Chingleput; but the Regional Transport Officer Nellore, refused to counter-sign giving effect to the renewal from 0-2-1968. The tribunal has specifically directed that the renewal should be for a period of five years with effect from 10-2-1968, and that was obeyed by the Regional Transport Officer, Chingleput.

It is the case of the Government Pleader that the Regional Transport officer, Nellore, is not bound by the decision of the State Transport Appellate tribunal Madras and that, whatever might be the effect of that order in so far the State of Madras is concerned, it cannot compel the Regional transport Officer of this state to counter-sign so as to renew the permits for a period of five years from 10-2-1968. The route for which the permits have been renewed is recognised by both the States and tax has been paid to the home State i.e. the State of Madras. The inter State permits were granted as a result of the agreement arrived at between the two States of Madras and Andhra Pradesh. By reason of the inter-State agreement, when once a valid permit is issued or renewed by the transport authorities of the State of Madras, a competent officer of this State has necessarily to counter-sign the permit.

So long as it is a valid permit and the vehicle operates in accordance with the conditions of the permit granted under the agreement, the countersigning officer in this State cannot ignore that agreement and say "I am not bound to countersign" merely for the reason that his counter-part in the other State has renewed the permit for a period of five years. This attitude of the Regional Transport officer, Nellore, runs counter to the notification referred to above and to the spirit and content of the inter State agreement entered into between the two States. The Regional Transport Officer, Nellore, had no alternative but to counter-sign, when once tax is paid to the other State i.e. the home State and a valid renewal of the permits is obtained for a period o five years; and the refusal on the facts of these two cases is clearly not warranted. I therefore, direct the Regional Transport Officer. Nellore to countersign the renewal valid from 10-2-1968.

In the result, the writ petitions are allowed; but in the circumstances, without costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 100/- in each.

This necessarily involves the quashing of the demand for payment of tax made by the licensing officer, Nellore, as the tax has already been paid to the home State i.e. State of Madras.

Petitions allowed.