Writ Appeal No.328/2010
5.5.2010
Shri Brijesh Dubey, for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate, for the
State.
Heard on admission.
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated
16.4.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.4421/2010 by the
learned Single Judge.
The appellant is owner of number of vehicles, which are
registered as public service vehicles at Regional Transport
Office, Bhopal. These vehicles are being plied to carry
workers/employees to the factory situated at Mandideep on
the basis of temporary permit issued under section 81(1)(c) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act"). The
appellant has been subjected to pay tax on the vehicles as per
Clause IV (c)(ii) of First Schedule of Madhya Pradesh Motoryan
Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (in short "the Adhiniyam") as a
contract carriage and as per notification dated 10.1.1992
issued by the State Government under section 21 (1) of the
Adhiniyam. In 2008-2009 audit objection was raised in respect
of the applicability of rate of tax on the vehicles. Pursuant to
the objection raised, appellant was served with a show cause
notice calling upon him to pay the dues of tax. Admittedly,
the appellant has filed reply Annexure P-9 to the show cause
notice and no final decision has been taken on it till this date.
He, however, rushed to the High Court by filing the writ
petition for quashing of show cause notice issued to him and
also for a direction against the respondents to issue him
temporary permits on the road from Bhopal and Mandideep
via Habibganj for carrying workers/employees of the factory.
The learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of
Supreme Court in Special Director and another Vs. Mohd.
Ghulam Ghouse AIR 2004 SC 1467 by the impugned order
dismissed the petition holding that in the absence of allegation
that the authorities who issued the show cause notice had no
jurisdiction the petition was not tenable. But the learned
Single Judge directed the authority concerned to decide the
issue on merits by a reasoned order.
After hearing the learned counsel for appellant, we find
no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
As regards the submission made on behalf of the
appellant that the learned Single Judge has not passed any
order with regard to his prayer for a direction against the
respondents for issuing temporary permits. To this
submission, we direct the authority concerned to decide the
application filed by the appellant for temporary permits
expeditiously on merits by reasoned order preferably within 30
days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
With the above direction, the appeal stands finally
disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH) (ANIL SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
TG/-