IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 281'?! DAY OF AUGUST 20:39;
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. MQOPADAOOIIIDA ~ _ _: A'
AND M
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARA:'V'I1\§3l)4A
WRIT APPEAL NO.20S 1"/200"5' ~.!+1'~MVT']"
WRIT PETITION 1_\IO.51452 22 004 {T913/IV' L11'
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.2cAS'I«/2005 %
BETWEEN A A
MARIO
52 YEARS, " ~
M/S PAUL TRAV"£L~S';LII ..
SEAGULL-HQUSE
RACE COURSE ROAD I
I3ANOALORE* '
" ~ APPELLANT
A Achar 8: Sri A. Srikanth, ACIVSJ
S_I ';I'I~1EV.DEi3UTY COMMISSIONER POR
AA TTRAIISPORTS
"BANGALORE DIVISION
* ~-BANGALORE~1
2 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
BANGALORE (C)
BDA COMPLEX
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE--34
(BY SR1. MANJUNATIIA.
REsPONDEN'I¥S;. "
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/s¢_" OE THE
KARNATAKA HIGH CQURT PRAYING-..ITO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSEI) I1\IV'[*HF;""'NRIT PETITION
NO.34342--343/2004 DATED 1'-5.}'12/2004';-.
IN WRIT PETI'I?IiOI\;fA'P1\'I_{)I§__1é3c€5é /2_4fV_1CIv14O(iVI'v":1'}
MARIO P_AR_E *
S/O EPEREIRA I "
AGED ABOUT 45V'YE;'§}{S"'-- A
PROP /s PAI.;LOfPRAVELs
_ SEA~:~.C.'gULL HOUSE, I
RACE COURSE ROAD'
EB. f ~e~GAII,OREI,"PEP. BY P.A.
"I-IOII,,DEI2;<B.s;PA;.IAGOPAL
PETITIONER
{BY M R V ACHAR 82: SR1 A. SREKANTH, ADVSJ
1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
AND TAX OFFICER (C)
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR TRANSPORT BANGALORE
[BY SR1. MANJUNATHfX;..AGIA.) * F'
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FII;ED UN'D_ER.AR'1TICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CO_NSTITU_TION*«.QF INDIA
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE 'I--MP_UGNED ORDERS
UNDER ANNEX.G. DT." vI31.8;20;04,S"--I,NfRESPECT OF
VEHICLE NO.GA--O1--Z--7999,._A1\INEX;'HL DT..i-3.8.2004 IN
RESPECT OF VEHICLEH"1\}Q.KA§DQ1--C--«8?79 AND OF
ANNEXJ. DT.:_' 332004 =iIN" RESPECT OF VEHICLE
NO.KA--O 1--AA+'9"27.7'8.. .. PASSj_ED._ BY 'R1 AND THE ORDER
PASSED BY RE.SPO'DJD'ENT'g No.2 IN APPEALS
NO.TAXw~.84/2.004' 6.12.2004 AS PER
THE)' THE PETITION HAVING
BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
1--7--2Q{38_COM1N'G" ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
V..."v.-JVUDGMENTRTHIS./DAY, SR1 ARAVIND KUMAR. J.
" D'E.LIV'§'+2.RED_'i~'.§_IE FOLLOW1N--G:
JUDGMENT
wnic’ apped Ne.2081/2005 is directed against the
0f”ti1e learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2004
in WP No.34342–34343/2004 and Connected
IE’
with ‘NP Nos.34432–485/2004 {T«~MVT) where under the
Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners therein dies
dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
Petitioners in W.P. 34432-435/2005_.~–have
challenged the order dated 15»12;t2o0ézadd%’same’T
become final in so for as they.Vcenee_r1″1ed.
2. WP Ne.51452/2094 ttieipettttoner
seeking quashing of 1_d:n:dAernu’_Annex1n”e~G
No.R’I’O.BNG(C)y’E§i§;jG4–t§A5 in respect of
Vehicle it it Annexure–H
in respect of
vehicle and of Annexure–J
No.RTC}.BI_\iG:(C)d/SR;04965: dated 3.8.2004 in respect of
tfehieleéi. passed by the respondent
the said Writ Petition i.e. WP
“‘iii.-Ti,”V”«.__5’*i452/2064 was being heard, it was brought to the
it nieticejioté.-‘of the learned Single Judge about the order
13
accidents from the restriction of being garaged within
the State of Karnataka and accordingly, sought.
dismissa}. of the Writ Petition.
10. We have heard the 1eai’ne¥§1 coitldrisdels-ij’
for the Writ Petitioners “also the 1 ..1Vea:J:’r1’ed’i
Government Advocate appea1°in’gT_V’forVV We
have given our raised
by the learned the
records in provisions
of the the notification that
has been Writ Petitions. Relevant
Provisions ‘*-__o’f _ thea”trtloristitution, Act. Rules and
_ ;\Iotiiidatio11. readifollows:
.1, .1f¥;i1tI§r:t””No.57 of List 11 of the Constitution of
Taxes on vehicles, whether
mechanicaily propelled or not, suitable
for use on roads, including tramcars
subject to the provisions of Entry 35 of
L’ t–III.”
IS V.
HI.
notification or directs that the notification shall
not have effect, the notification shall thereaftier_V
have effect only in such modified form
no effect as the case may be.”
Rule 34 and Rule 34A, [8 and-:’:?”‘ofiT.’~3f38}4_”:w’,
reads as under
“£34. Vehicies eztenigpted h”from_fVta:E~.;V’i111£i’er
Section 16 «- (1) pe_r__so’n__c1_aiIningf_:e;s:enhption
from payment of ta:.>{j’.1_nder;V-‘anynotification issued
under Section 16 vehicle,
shall applyuin t’rip1icate, to the
Regional’ .Wwithin Whose
jurivsdictiopn for use is kept,
togietherfff’ particulars as that
authority rnay obtain a [taxation card
and the necessary…«endorsement thereon} after
satisfying V.’the_Regionai Transport Officer that the
if « , _pVfyiehihcie_hjisyexempted from payment of the tax.
if ” “{(2)h’If–“.”the:=.V’I5tegionaJ Transport Officer is satisfied
“”‘:that:ti1e”‘vehic1e is exempted from payment of tax,
n _he ‘shall issue a tax free taxation card with the
v._p_’.\’>ig*ord “Exempted” endorsed in such taxation card
specifying the period of exemptionzi
E6
[3] The application under sub–rule {1} sha.l1″”‘be
made to the Regional Transport Officer, in .4
of any vehicle kept outside the State ~
entry of such vehicle into the State an(i”ini:the”Vcase it
of any vehicle kept within the State, _
days of the expiry of the [period. for.y;ph’ich
endorsement has been l’Ii.’¢’;a~€,’ in the ts.xatio’n”‘ca1~d,]
if any, last issued in respye_ct’o_f such hyehiclef
[[4] The fee for the “Fpree taxation
card shall be’ Rs. 5;]
[5] the payrnent of
for any purpose or
operationlvin’feolitfayention of Rule 36, the tax, as
the lcaselrnayl :_fo«rTt1i.e quarter, half year or the
year in4″”which’.’–snché”contravention took place shall
within—.–a«period not exceeding fifteen days
A ” ~ _fro1’n*the’date of such contravention]
,__”‘{%34-fit.’intimation of nomuse of vehicles – (1)
llntiniiation of non~»use of motor vehicles granted
V * ‘exemption from payment of tax under sub~cIause
V’ -{ii} of clause (a) of sub–section (1) of Section 16 of
the Act, shall be in Form No.30.]
” V
E
1-.5
{2} For every intimation of no11–use of vehicle, affee
of rupees one hundred shall be paid
Form 30. For every application, for extehsioii1’tj’ot~–
period of non–use, a renewaylmpfee of-“rup:ees’~~.onpe it
hundred shall be paid by the iapplicantl “I ”
IV. Notification dated 6.8.20C:’fV3__v”‘*».ride
“NOTIFICATION UNDER 1sIoToR”t*t~:1i1ci.Es
AC;i’,..195’If'[ ; ‘4 V dd
_ Q :,A:tofi:’i:f1cAi1iof§i”:. —
No. HTD 3? tlatejd an: August. 2003
Kamataka ipi1, dated 27-os-2003
In by sub–c1ause (ii) of
clause [a) of 16 of the Karnataka Motor
Vehic1es_’i’axatio.n “Act;-_ 1A95>7’~~–{1Karnataka Act 35 of 1957], and
of”tNotj.fication No. HTIZ) 95 TMT 77{ii), dated
I~94i980,_vti1e”ffiomgrnment of Karnataka being of the opinion that
it is AIie~ciessa’ryfin public interest so to do, hereby exempt motor
yehicleds registered in the State of Karnataka and not used on
froth’ the payment of tax under the said Act for a period of
it ,o1i.eVfu1.1’quarter, half-year or one year, as the case may be, during
DJ”
E8
which such vehicles are not used on roads, subject to the following
conditions. namely«
1. Nonmuse of the motor Vehicle shall be intimated.:”in.”‘.4A
person or by Registered Post Aciinowledgemeiit ~
before the commencement of the quarter’i1aIf~ye’a.r’or
one year as the case may be», in «3Qlas”per”Ru_le=:;;a A
34–A of the Karnatakau Motorhttfifehicles
Rules, I957 along with’tl1e:._Vf’ee_prescrib’eQ:Q; ‘
KARNATAKA CIVIL seamen (sf? iit’I’LEs,2oo3
2. The Registration Card and
permitqjf any, 1i’1o«s;o§:j’vehicle shall be
sni’re11deAr_ed.’V kligg -.Regional”‘vVVll’ransport officer
__ theityapifalication.
Pros{ide__d– .w«h_e1’e»s’nch…do.cuments are seized or retained
by any.V_a’uthorityV, obtained from such authority
regatrdinagsuicli esheiznretor retention shall be produced.
x In caseamotor vehicle covered by hypothecation or
3 _ agreement of lease agreement. If the
vehicle is seized by the financier and the
document relating to it are not with the applicant, the
non–use shall be intimated to the concerned Regional
Transport Officer with a declaration of non–availability
JEN? Vv
l
l
of documents in Form 30 with the prescribed fees.
Before release of the motor vehicle, the financiershall
produce the original documents or fresh registr:a’tio’n
certificate of the vehicle.
Address proof or consent letter_of thehgaragelwhere
the vehicle is intend to be 3 f
non–use shall be produced for “p_lfiy’sical ”
the vehicle. ‘ V V. H
Except the vehiclpes “-a.ccident.fparked for
repair purpose all other
mot9.r« the State of
Kar1rat._a’kVa–‘:’_Vin jurisdiction of any registering
…. –.au’ti;o’rit;j}*1 :;x_ ,_
Tried periods o’t’anor1_«use of vehicle shall not exceed
f rvmore ljfearsxlfrorn the date of declaration in
‘ V _ Form. The ‘authorities are empowered to take
action to Hmcancel the registration certificate after
.. vefar;}:’:;g the condition of the vehicle.
motor vehicle shall not be removed during the
period of exemption from the place where the motor
vehicle is kept without the prior permission of the
concerned Regional Transport Officer.
21
the nonwuse of the Vehicle with copy of the First
information Report issued by the concerned Police
Officer.
2. If any motor vehicle is confiscate or sei;:e–d.’_”by9_i’ the’
Central or State Government, the non–i1se he-.1
intimated for the purpose of ‘¢1a:’mu_1g.’ exernfpfion
payment of tax. The matter Alshotild be >c’o_nIi~:’_rn€d
the concerned authorities”m3_gardiiig_ seizure an(i”r~eIease ”
of the Vehicle. _
The First informationffiiep-ogfit” vA.fi’¢;r__’_’.the purpose of
claiming exerzifjtionlfrom V V
come’ into force with effect
from–the in ..the Official Gazette.”
11 ‘Clause’5″f5f*th’e..notification is the one which is
the subject”ma’tterv._foi:_consideration and the entire issue
around “clause 5 of the notification dated
ciause 5 is extracted herein below
V’-by the” petitioners.
for pfl.1f;’i-gzsles of considering the arguments advanced
ii
“WmWm-.:«u»,=._N
22
“5. Except the vehicles involved in
accident, parked for repair purpose or Body
building purpose. all other motor
should be kept within the State of ~
the jurisdiction of any registeringat;tilijoritjr.47fV it
12. The said notification ishissued in __exei*cise”.olf=.
the powers conferred in sui:«._–_ciauseV’ (ijlof “e1a–use”–a of ‘V
Subsection 1 of Section.’ 16 Tihe said
notification is a and hence, it
should be the§..e13i.:c1Vtf:3.VorVV’o%fl a purposive
interpretation until and unless it
Vio1ates”the”right’: petitioners as per the
provisions of India. in this regad,
the above saidV_V’enti”–y iI”~»ioV.’.”3′”i? of List-Ii of the Constitution
“of In.ciia.,’-e~.mandates”‘that “taxes could be imposed on
i”ireh.icies”-fiaviietlier mechanically propelled or not
suit:s_ble.for”..use on roads including traxncars subiect
‘go theiirovisions of Entrv 35 of List-III”. This pre«
that any Vehicle which is not used on roads
gt
‘V’
24
Karnataka Vs. K. Giopalakrishna Shenoy reported in
AIR 3987 SC 1911 which ultimately came to-_be
upheld.
13. Section 18 empowers _the_Statemto” “‘
reduce whether prospectively-or retrospecti’ve§Vy,’;:Hthejg
payable in respect of any niotoirilvellifaicles or
motor Vehicles not ~ Whenclause 5
of the notification is [.’oackground, it
could be seen: to exempt from
payn1ent__oi trehicles garaged in the
State that any sort of misuse can
be avoided’ ‘on of said factor unable to be
monitored continuously. Thus, contention of the
»ptetitionVe1*s’«.that granting exemption in respect of the
‘Vehiclesv ‘ in the State of Karznataka for the
purpcsefiofl repairs and denying the same to the vehicles
V’ ll..j;_:,;AaragedVl outside the State of Karnataka would amount
‘ to discrimination does not hold water inasmuch as the
51% V
25
vehicles garaged in the State of Karnataka and the
Vehicies garaged outside the State form distinctiand
separate classes and they cannot be compar’e’cl.’.V’_t–oj: _
equals and same treatment cannot be 2
thereby leading to consequentialVexeniption,’ -EXen§pt_iont A’
under Section 16 of the K1\»WT__Act2 i-sxa con;ce.ssi.Q1jV1
not a right. Hence, when intetnretation is
given to the notificatio’nV:,A’it ‘found fault With
and it would 1e:;td_. to the same
class of by the learned
Government” ‘ ‘S be practically
impossible éifot of Motor Vehicles to keep a
watch iiigaraged outside the State of
Ka3jri’at§ii§o __as teifritorial jurisdiction of these officers
‘ca:nn.ot’V_be :ve)§:er.cised by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles
outside of Karnataka. Thus, the vehicles
‘v..»garageti}_0ntside the Karnataka cannot be monitored
“:i:”_cont’inuous1y as to whether they are being used or not.
iv
‘ii
26
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering
the scope and effect of Section 3(1) of the Mysore”Ni_’o_tor4
Vehicles Taxation Act 1957 has held to the ‘
effect. é
“Sections 3 and 4 are ._
and the liability to pair the Vad’§fa1ice.VViVs..3not
dependant upon the vehic:le_ubeing by a
Certificate of fitness Eaten ifvvlthe vehicle
was not in a roadxivorthyi’conditio.n’ -and could not
be put touse the necessary
repairs 7_};)eing__. carried out,. V ‘the'””owner or person
having p_o§3ses’sio_nf’t- control of a vehicle is
enjoliriedjto taitllvonvlvéthe Vehicle and then
seek’ :a’ “principle underlying the
Ta2rati_on_ACt motor vehicle issued a
Certificated of llegistration is to be deemed a
V-i-*’po’ten’tial usefof the roads all through the time the
of Registration is current and therefore
‘”.*1i;i’r;iet¢~;1:ay tax under s.3(i) read with s4.”
The learned Single Judge in interpreting the
or3f’wgrd~«gg.’vehic1es’ in WP No.5i452/2004 has held that in
it plural it signifies situations more than one and hence, it
:'”\ Iv
if
Q
:13
27
is not merely the vehicle involved in the accident
requiring repairs or body building, but also the vehicle
garaged for repair purpose and body building
to be included for granting exemption be l
purposive interpretation which can be pgiven’:tovclau-sel5_.p f
This would not be the situation insofar asrV»the,:vehii;:le’s
parked out side the State or body
building purpose other _ than Vehicles involved in
accident inasmuch Judge while
examining regardhto””the punctuation
namely cpomznia-after.’ihetyyordaaocident’ as held in para
14 and;_l5_ tothe’~~folloWing_effect:
xA_’C:o1n:inaVis put as per the Rules of
Gramrnarr indicates a slight pause or break
{between of a sentence. It is well
es.tab;1is}1ed that a punctuation is a minor
l. the construction of a statute. It
cannot be regarded as controlling element for
determining the meaning of a statute. In the
“_«case of Lewis Pugh Evans Pugh Vs. Ashutosh
Sen and other [AIR 1929 1′-‘.C. 69] it is held that
W
23
commas are no part of the statute. In the case
of Ashwind Kumar Ghose and another Vs.
Arabinda Bose and another (AIR 1952 sceegsss)
the Apex Court has held that
cannot be allowed to control the ‘
of a text. It is held as follows;
“punctuation is after alEl..ajj.niinor’—-elc111_entgf
in the construction ofe..a:”statut’e:,g$;nd
little attention isfi”~paid.V’lt~o ‘it: ‘l_)y'”‘~–.TE”r1glish ‘ i
Courts. ‘__Whengp_…aff.statute carefully
punctuated._..§’sI3Adi_V_ doubt about its
meaning, a_urveigli’tVshouideiindoubtedly be
V to the» i . I Punctuation
irnayg uses iii) some cases, but it
____ H _ i regarded as a
_ controii.i’ng:V:V”‘~«elentent and cannot be
i the plain meaning of a
text.’ A
the present case, the plain
.._of the text is very clear and the use
neither adds to it nor detracts from
its ordinary meaning. In my view, it does not
disclose any legislative intention of providing
Viiflexemption in respect of vehicles kept outside
;'”\ 3 “x4
t e
18. Hence we are of the View that View expressed
by the learned judge in WP. 51452/ 2004 is erroneous
and we agree with the View expressed by
judge in WP 34342-343/2004. _
circumstances, we are of the View tha.t—-»of:der”~.:()f-the W ‘V
learned Single Judge passed in
does not call for interferen-e;e.___andh”aeéordi;’1$1y;:dx2t3″e
that c1ause–5 of the I10tif’iCatifi{%jv«.V'(v;:1ig¢t§.C1 not
impose a restriction of vehicles and
thus dismiss the writ:ap;aea1Vand_ dismiss
the Writ Pe’titib11s\.:; _ Ne7’}Vb’rderVV.:as toxecists.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sel-
EUDGE