IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.8.2007 C O R A M : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.NO.18496 of 2005 Mrs.N.Eeswari .. Petitioner -vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary To Government, Home (Transport-I) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Regional Transport Officer, Salem. .. Respondents PRAYER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of declaration declaring that Section 4(1-A)(a) introduced by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 27 of 1998 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 2003 by substituting Schedule III Part I of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India insofar as it relates to levy of life tax for new registration of the vehicle insofar as the petitioner is concerned. For petitioner :: Mr.K.Venugopal For respondents :: Mr.A.Arumugam, Additional Government Pleader O R D E R
Mr.A.Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by an order of the Division Bench of this Court made in VIJAYAN, K.M. Vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2005 (4) CTC 337).
4. Paragraph 39 of the said order reads as follows:
“39. In the result, we hold that Section 4(1-A)(a), introduced by The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 27 of 1998, as amended by The Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 2003, by substituting Schedule-III, Part I, of The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, as it relates to levy of lifetime tax for new registration of vehicles and Section 3-A, levying Green Tax in respect of vehicles mentioned in Fourth Schedule of The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 are constitutionally valid. Consequently, we dismiss all the writ petitions, with no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not refuted the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, in view of the said order of the Division Bench of this Court made in VIJAYAN, K.M. Vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2005 (4) CTC 337). No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P.No.20064 of 2005 is also dismissed.
lan/js