AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner, holder of a stage carriage permit No. 1/98-99 valid upto 15-4-2013 issued by the RTA, Kolar, when covered by motor vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-07/2488 registered in the name of Ajaj Pasha taken on lease, filed an application before the Secretary, RTA, Kolar for replacement of the said vehicle by another motor vehicle bearing registration No. KA-40/4484. The Secretary, RTA, Kolar having issued an endorsement dated 3-12-2009 calling upon him to pay the arrears of tax to issue a clearance certificate whereafter the application would be considered, the petitioner instituted Appeal No. 644 of 2009 invoking Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ''Act''). The Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, ''KSTAT''), having regard to the fact that there was no refusal on the part of the RTA, Kolar to consider the petitioner''s application for replacement of vehicle, held that there could not have been any challenge to the said endorsement by invoking Section 89 of the Act, and accordingly, by order dated 15-1-2010, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Hence this writ petition.
Although learned Counsel for the petitioner vociferously contends that the demand of tax cannot be a ground for non-consideration of the petitioner''s application for replacement of the vehicle, I am not impressed by that submission. An examination of the order impugned discloses that the KSTAT took into consideration Section 14 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 which states that the transport vehicle permit would be ineffective if the tax is not paid. Admittedly, the petitioner having obtained the permit to which was attached the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-07/2488, liable to tax of Rs. 1,05,600/- for the period 1-2-2009 to 31-1-2010, coupled with the fact that the lease agreement was in force until 31-1-2010, the KSTAT was fully justified in recording a finding that the permit was ineffective and, the question of considering the application did not arise.
Yet another factor that weighed in the mind of the KSTAT was the observation of this Court in Krishna Menon and another Vs. District Judge and Others, wherein it is held that a defaulter who owes huge amount to the State is disentitled to grant of a permit or licence as otherwise it would be opposed to the public policy and that refusal to grant the special permit cannot be termed as arbitrary, discriminatory or irrational. Although this observation was made in the light of grant of a special permit, nevertheless the principle therein applies. That is, a permit holder who is a defaulter to the State in the eye of law, the grant of permit or consideration of an application for replacement of vehicle, is opposed to public policy.
In that view of the matter, there are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the order of the KSTAT. Petition is accordingly rejected.