{"id":237038,"date":"2009-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-07T19:23:21","modified_gmt":"2019-03-07T13:53:21","slug":"mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mario Pereira vs The Deputy Commissioner For … on 28 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Mario Pereira vs The Deputy Commissioner For … on 28 August, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.Gopalagowda And Kumar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 281'?! DAY OF AUGUST 20:39;\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. MQOPADAOOIIIDA ~ _ _: A'  \n\nAND  M\n\nTHE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARA:'V'I1\\\u00a73l)4A \n\nWRIT APPEAL NO.20S 1\"\/200\"5' ~.!+1'~MVT']\"   \n\nWRIT PETITION 1_\\IO.51452 22 004 {T913\/IV' L11' \n\nIN WRIT APPEAL NO.2cAS'I\u00ab\/2005  %\nBETWEEN    A   A\n\nMARIO    \n52 YEARS,  \"   ~\n\nM\/S PAUL TRAV\"\u00a3L~S';LII  ..\nSEAGULL-HQUSE     \nRACE COURSE ROAD I \nI3ANOALORE*    '\n\n  \" ~ APPELLANT\n\nA    Achar 8: Sri A. Srikanth, ACIVSJ\n\nS_I ';I'I~1EV.DEi3UTY COMMISSIONER POR\n\nAA TTRAIISPORTS\n \"BANGALORE DIVISION\n* ~-BANGALORE~1\n\n\n\n2 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER\n\nBANGALORE (C)\nBDA COMPLEX\n\nKORAMANGALA\nBANGALORE--34\n\n(BY SR1. MANJUNATIIA.      \n\nREsPONDEN'I\u00a5S;.  \"\n\nTHIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U\/s\u00a2_\" OE THE\nKARNATAKA HIGH CQURT  PRAYING-..ITO SET\nASIDE THE ORDER PASSEI) I1\\IV'[*HF;\"\"'NRIT PETITION\nNO.34342--343\/2004 DATED 1'-5.}'12\/2004';-.\n\nIN WRIT PETI'I?IiOI\\;fA'P1\\'I_{)I\u00a7__1\u00e93c\u20ac5\u00e9 \/2_4fV_1CIv14O(iVI'v\":1'}\n\nMARIO P_AR_E * \nS\/O EPEREIRA I \"\n\nAGED ABOUT 45V'YE;'\u00a7}{S\"'-- A\n\nPROP  \/s PAI.;LOfPRAVELs\n\n _ SEA~:~.C.'gULL HOUSE, I\n\n RACE COURSE ROAD'\nEB. f ~e~GAII,OREI,\"PEP. BY P.A.\n\"I-IOII,,DEI2;<B.s;PA;.IAGOPAL\n\nPETITIONER\n\n {BY  M R V ACHAR 82: SR1 A. SREKANTH, ADVSJ\n\n\n\n1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER\nAND TAX OFFICER (C)\nKORAMANGALA\nBANGALORE\n\n2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER\nFOR TRANSPORT BANGALORE\n\n[BY SR1. MANJUNATHfX;..AGIA.)  * F' \n\nTHIS WRIT PETITION IS FII;ED UN'D_ER.AR'1TICLES\n226 AND 227 OF THE CO_NSTITU_TION*\u00ab.QF INDIA\nPRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE 'I--MP_UGNED ORDERS\nUNDER ANNEX.G. DT." vI31.8;20;04,S"--I,NfRESPECT OF\nVEHICLE NO.GA--O1--Z--7999,._A1\\INEX;'HL DT..i-3.8.2004 IN\nRESPECT OF VEHICLEH"1\\}Q.KA\u00a7DQ1--C--\u00ab8?79 AND OF\nANNEXJ. DT.:_' 332004 =iIN" RESPECT OF VEHICLE\nNO.KA--O 1--AA+'9"27.7'8.. .. PASSj_ED._ BY 'R1 AND THE ORDER\nPASSED BY  RE.SPO'DJD'ENT'g No.2 IN APPEALS\nNO.TAXw~.84\/2.004' 6.12.2004 AS PER\n\nTHE)'   THE PETITION HAVING\nBEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON\n1--7--2Q{38_COM1N'G" ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF\n\nV..."v.-JVUDGMENTRTHIS.\/DAY, SR1 ARAVIND KUMAR. J.\n"  D'E.LIV'\u00a7'+2.RED_'i~'.\u00a7_IE FOLLOW1N--G:\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
wnic’ apped Ne.2081\/2005 is directed against the<\/p>\n
 0f”ti1e learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2004<\/p>\n
 in WP No.34342–34343\/2004 and Connected<\/p>\n
IE’<\/p>\n
with ‘NP Nos.34432–485\/2004 {T\u00ab~MVT) where under the<\/p>\n
Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners therein dies<\/p>\n
dismissed by the learned Single Judge.   <\/p>\n
Petitioners in W.P. 34432-435\/2005_.~–have<\/p>\n
challenged the order dated 15\u00bb12;t2o0\u00e9zadd%’same’T<\/p>\n
become final in so for as they.Vcenee_r1″1ed.   <\/p>\n
2. WP Ne.51452\/2094  ttieipettttoner
\nseeking quashing of  1_d:n:dAernu’_Annex1n”e~G
\nNo.R’I’O.BNG(C)y’E\u00a7i\u00a7;jG4–t\u00a7A5  in respect of
\nVehicle it it  Annexure–H
\n in respect of
\nvehicle  and of Annexure–J<\/p>\n
No.RTC}.BI_\\iG:(C)d\/SR;04965: dated 3.8.2004 in respect of<\/p>\n
 tfehiele\u00e9i.  passed by the respondent<\/p>\n
  the said Writ Petition i.e. WP<\/p>\n
“‘iii.-Ti,”V”\u00ab.__5’*i452\/2064 was being heard, it was brought to the<\/p>\n
it  nieticejiot\u00e9.-‘of the learned Single Judge about the order<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
accidents from the restriction of being garaged within<\/p>\n
the State of Karnataka and accordingly, sought.<\/p>\n
dismissa}. of the Writ Petition.<\/p>\n
10. We have heard the 1eai’ne\u00a5\u00a71 coitldrisdels-ij’ <\/p>\n
for the Writ Petitioners “also the 1 ..1Vea:J:’r1’ed’i<\/p>\n
Government Advocate appea1\u00b0in’gT_V’forVV  We
\nhave given our  raised
\nby the learned  the
\nrecords in    provisions
\nof the   the noti\ufb01cation that
\nhas been   Writ Petitions. Relevant<\/p>\n
Provisions ‘*-__o’f _ thea”trtloristitution, Act. Rules and<\/p>\n
 _ ;\\Iotiiidatio11. readifollows:<\/p>\n
  .1, .1f\u00a5;i1tI\u00a7r:t””No.57 of List 11 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
 Taxes on vehicles, whether
\n mechanicaily propelled or not, suitable
\nfor use on roads, including tramcars<\/p>\n
subject to the provisions of Entry 35 of<\/p>\n
L’ t–III.”\n<\/p>\n
IS  V.\n<\/p>\n
HI.\n<\/p>\n
noti\ufb01cation or directs that the noti\ufb01cation shall<\/p>\n
not have effect, the noti\ufb01cation shall thereaftier_V<\/p>\n
have effect only in such modified form  <\/p>\n
no effect as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
Rule 34 and Rule 34A, [8 and-:’:?”‘ofiT.’~3f38}4_”:w’,  <\/p>\n
reads as under<\/p>\n
“\u00a334. Vehicies eztenigpted h”from_fVta:E~.;V’i111\u00a3i’er
\nSection 16 \u00ab- (1)  pe_r__so’n__c1_aiIningf_:e;s:enhption
\nfrom payment of ta:.>{j’.1_nder;V-‘anynoti\ufb01cation issued
\nunder Section 16  vehicle,
\nshall applyuin t’rip1icate, to the
\nRegional’     .Wwithin Whose
\njurivsdictiopn   for use is kept,
\ntogietherfff’ particulars as that
\nauthority rnay obtain a [taxation card<\/p>\n
and the necessary…\u00abendorsement thereon} after<\/p>\n
satisfying V.’the_Regionai Transport Officer that the<\/p>\n
 if \u00ab , _pVfyiehihcie_hjisyexempted from payment of the tax.<\/p>\n
if ”  “{(2)h’If–“.”the:=.V’I5tegionaJ Transport Officer is satisfied<\/p>\n
“”‘:that:ti1e”‘vehic1e is exempted from payment of tax,<\/p>\n
 n _he ‘shall issue a tax free taxation card with the<\/p>\n
 v._p_’.\\’>ig*ord “Exempted” endorsed in such taxation card<\/p>\n
specifying the period of exemptionzi<\/p>\n
E6<\/p>\n
[3] The application under sub–rule {1} sha.l1″”‘be<\/p>\n
made to the Regional Transport Officer, in .4<\/p>\n
of any vehicle kept outside the State  ~<\/p>\n
entry of such vehicle into the State an(i”ini:the”Vcase  it <\/p>\n
of any vehicle kept within the State, _ <\/p>\n
days of the expiry of the [period. for.y;ph’ich <\/p>\n
endorsement has been l’Ii.’\u00a2’;a~\u20ac,’ in the ts.xatio’n”‘ca1~d,]<\/p>\n
if any, last issued in respye_ct’o_f such hyehiclef<\/p>\n
[[4] The fee for the  “Fpree taxation<\/p>\n
card shall be’ Rs. 5;]<\/p>\n
[5]   the payrnent of
\n  for any purpose or
\noperationlvin’feolitfayention of Rule 36, the tax, as
\nthe lcaselrnayl  :_fo\u00abrTt1i.e quarter, half year or the<\/p>\n
year in4″”which’.’–snch\u00e9”contravention took place shall<\/p>\n
  within—.–a\u00abperiod not exceeding \ufb01fteen days<\/p>\n
A ” ~ _fro1’n*the’date of such contravention]<\/p>\n
 ,__”‘{%34-fit.’intimation of nomuse of vehicles – (1)<\/p>\n
llntiniiation of non~\u00bbuse of motor vehicles granted<\/p>\n
V * ‘exemption from payment of tax under sub~cIause<\/p>\n
V’  -{ii} of clause (a) of sub–section (1) of Section 16 of<\/p>\n
the Act, shall be in Form No.30.]<\/p>\n
 ” V
\n  E
\n1-.5<\/p>\n
{2} For every intimation of no11–use of vehicle, affee<\/p>\n
of rupees one hundred shall be paid <\/p>\n
Form 30. For every application, for extehsioii1’tj’ot~–<\/p>\n
period of non–use, a renewaylmpfee of-“rup:ees’~~.onpe it<\/p>\n
hundred shall be paid by the iapplicantl “I   ”<\/p>\n
IV. Noti\ufb01cation dated 6.8.20C:’fV3__v”‘*\u00bb.ride   <\/p>\n
“NOTIFICATION UNDER 1sIoToR”t*t~:1i1ci.Es
\nAC;i’,..195’If'[ ; ‘4 V dd
\n_ Q :,A:to\ufb01:’i:f1cAi1iof\u00a7i”:.  —
\nNo. HTD 3?  tlatejd an: August. 2003
\nKamataka   ipi1, dated 27-os-2003
\nIn   by sub–c1ause (ii) of
\nclause [a) of  16 of the Karnataka Motor<\/p>\n
Vehic1es_’i’axatio.n “Act;-_ 1A95>7’~~–{1Karnataka Act 35 of 1957], and<\/p>\n
  of”tNotj.\ufb01cation No. HTIZ) 95 TMT 77{ii), dated<\/p>\n
 I~94i980,_vti1e”ffiomgrnment of Karnataka being of the opinion that<\/p>\n
it is AIie~ciessa’ryfin  public interest so to do, hereby exempt motor<\/p>\n
yehicleds registered in the State of Karnataka and not used on<\/p>\n
froth’ the payment of tax under the said Act for a period of<\/p>\n
it ,o1i.eVfu1.1’quarter, half-year or one year, as the case may be, during<\/p>\n
DJ”\n<\/p>\n
E8<\/p>\n
which such vehicles are not used on roads, subject to the following<\/p>\n
conditions. namely\u00ab<\/p>\n
1. Nonmuse of the motor Vehicle shall be intimated.:”in.”‘.4A<\/p>\n
person or by Registered Post Aciinowledgemeiit  ~<\/p>\n
before the commencement of the quarter’i1aIf~ye’a.r’or <\/p>\n
one year as the case may be\u00bb, in \u00ab3Qlas”per”Ru_le=:;;a A<\/p>\n
34–A of the Karnatakau Motorhtt\ufb01fehicles
\nRules, I957 along with’tl1e:._Vf’ee_prescrib’eQ:Q; ‘
\nKARNATAKA CIVIL seamen (sf?  iit’I’LEs,2oo3\n<\/p>\n
2. The Registration   Card and
\npermitqjf any,  1i’1o\u00abs;o\u00a7:j’vehicle shall be
\nsni’re11deAr_ed.’V  kligg -.Regional”‘vVVll’ransport officer
\n __  theityapifalication.\n<\/p>\n
Pros{ide__d– .w\u00abh_e1’e\u00bbs’nch…do.cuments are seized or retained
\nby any.V_a’uthorityV,  obtained from such authority
\nregatrdinagsuicli esheiznretor retention shall be produced.
\n x In caseamotor vehicle covered by hypothecation or
\n3  _  agreement of lease agreement. If the
\n  vehicle is seized by the \ufb01nancier and the
\n  document relating to it are not with the applicant, the
\nnon–use shall be intimated to the concerned Regional<\/p>\n
Transport Officer with a declaration of non–availability<\/p>\n
JEN? Vv<\/p>\n
l<\/p>\n
l<\/p>\n
of documents in Form 30 with the prescribed fees.
\nBefore release of the motor vehicle, the \ufb01nanciershall
\nproduce the original documents or fresh registr:a’tio’n<\/p>\n
certi\ufb01cate of the vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
Address proof or consent letter_of thehgaragelwhere <\/p>\n
the vehicle is intend to be  3 f<\/p>\n
non–use shall be produced for “p_lfiy’sical  ”
\nthe vehicle. ‘  V V. H
\nExcept the vehiclpes “-a.ccident.fparked for
\nrepair purpose  all other
\nmot9.r\u00ab    the State of<\/p>\n
Kar1rat._a’kVa–‘:’_Vin  jurisdiction of any registering<\/p>\n
 …. –.au’ti;o’rit;j}*1 :;x_ ,_<\/p>\n
Tried periods o’t’anor1_\u00abuse of vehicle shall not exceed<\/p>\n
f rvmore  ljfearsxlfrorn the date of declaration in<\/p>\n
‘ V _ Form.  The ‘authorities are empowered to take<\/p>\n
 action to Hmcancel the registration certi\ufb01cate after<\/p>\n
..   vefar;}:’:;g the condition of the vehicle.<\/p>\n
 motor vehicle shall not be removed during the<\/p>\n
  period of exemption from the place where the motor<\/p>\n
vehicle is kept without the prior permission of the<\/p>\n
concerned Regional Transport Officer.<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
the nonwuse of the Vehicle with copy of the First
\ninformation Report issued by the concerned Police<\/p>\n
Officer.\n<\/p>\n
2. If any motor vehicle is con\ufb01scate or sei;:e–d.’_”by9_i’ the’ <\/p>\n
Central or State Government, the non–i1se  he-.1<\/p>\n
intimated for the purpose of ‘\u00a21a:’mu_1g.’ exernfp\ufb01on <\/p>\n
payment of tax. The matter Alshotild be >c’o_nIi~:’_rn\u20acd <\/p>\n
the concerned authorities”m3_gardiiig_ seizure an(i”r~eIease ”<\/p>\n
of the Vehicle.  _  <\/p>\n
The First informationffiiep-ogfit” vA.fi’\u00a2;r__’_’.the purpose of
\nclaiming exerzifjtionlfrom V V<\/p>\n
  come’ into force with effect
\nfrom–the   in ..the Official Gazette.”
\n11 ‘Clause’5″f5f*th’e..noti\ufb01cation is the one which is<\/p>\n
the subject”ma’tterv._foi:_consideration and the entire issue<\/p>\n
 around “clause 5 of the notification dated<\/p>\n
   ciause 5 is extracted herein below<\/p>\n
V’-by the” petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
for  p\ufb02.1f;’i-gzsles of considering the arguments advanced<\/p>\n
ii<\/p>\n
“WmWm-.:\u00abu\u00bb,=._N<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
“5. Except the vehicles involved in<\/p>\n
accident, parked for repair purpose or Body<\/p>\n
building purpose. all other motor
\nshould be kept within the State of  ~<\/p>\n
the jurisdiction of any registeringat;tilijoritjr.47fV  it  <\/p>\n
12. The said noti\ufb01cation ishissued in __exei*cise”.olf=.<\/p>\n
the powers conferred in sui:\u00ab._–_ciauseV’ (ijlof “e1a–use”–a of ‘V<\/p>\n
Subsection 1 of Section.’ 16   Tihe said
\nnotification is a  and hence, it
\nshould be the\u00a7..e13i.:c1Vtf:3.VorVV’o%fl a purposive
\ninterpretation until and unless it
\nVio1ates”the”right’: petitioners as per the
\nprovisions  of India. in this regad,<\/p>\n
the above saidV_V’enti”–y iI”~\u00bbioV.’.”3′”i? of List-Ii of the Constitution<\/p>\n
 “of In.ciia.,’-e~.mandates”‘that “taxes could be imposed on<\/p>\n
i”ireh.icies”-\ufb01aviietlier mechanically propelled or not<\/p>\n
suit:s_ble.for”..use on roads including traxncars subiect<\/p>\n
‘go theiirovisions of Entrv 35 of List-III”. This pre\u00ab<\/p>\n
  that any Vehicle which is not used on roads<\/p>\n
gt<\/p>\n
‘V’<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
Karnataka Vs. K. Giopalakrishna Shenoy reported in
\nAIR 3987 SC 1911 which ultimately came to-_be<\/p>\n
upheld.\n<\/p>\n
13. Section 18 empowers _the_Statemto” “‘<\/p>\n
reduce whether prospectively-or retrospecti’ve\u00a7Vy,’;:Hthejg <\/p>\n
payable in respect of any   niotoirilvellifaicles or
\nmotor Vehicles not  ~ Whenclause 5
\nof the notification is [.’oackground, it
\ncould be seen:   to exempt from
\npayn1ent__oi   trehicles garaged in the
\nState   that any sort of misuse can<\/p>\n
be avoided’ ‘on of said factor unable to be<\/p>\n
 monitored continuously. Thus, contention of the<\/p>\n
 \u00bbptetitionVe1*s’\u00ab.that granting exemption in respect of the<\/p>\n
‘Vehiclesv ‘  in the State of Karznataka for the<\/p>\n
 purpcse\ufb01ofl repairs and denying the same to the vehicles<\/p>\n
V’ ll..j;_:,;AaragedVl outside the State of Karnataka would amount<\/p>\n
‘  to discrimination does not hold water inasmuch as the<\/p>\n
51% V<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
vehicles garaged in the State of Karnataka and the<\/p>\n
Vehicies garaged outside the State form distinctiand<\/p>\n
separate classes and they cannot be compar’e’cl.’.V’_t–oj: _<\/p>\n
equals and same treatment cannot be  2 <\/p>\n
thereby leading to consequentialVexeniption,’ -EXen\u00a7pt_iont A’<\/p>\n
under Section 16 of the K1\\\u00bbWT__Act2 i-sxa con;ce.ssi.Q1jV1  <\/p>\n
not a right. Hence, when  intetnretation is
\ngiven to the notificatio’nV:,A’it ‘found fault With
\nand it would 1e:;td_. to  the same
\nclass of   by the learned
\nGovernment” ‘   ‘S   be practically
\nimpossible \u00e9ifot  of Motor Vehicles to keep a<\/p>\n
watch  iiigaraged outside the State of<\/p>\n
  Ka3jri’at\u00a7ii\u00a7o __as  teifritorial jurisdiction of these officers<\/p>\n
 ‘ca:nn.ot’V_be :ve)\u00a7:er.cised by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles<\/p>\n
outside  of Karnataka. Thus, the vehicles<\/p>\n
‘v..\u00bbgarageti}_0ntside the Karnataka cannot be monitored<\/p>\n
“:i:”_cont’inuous1y as to whether they are being used or not.<\/p>\n
 iv
\n‘ii<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering<\/p>\n
the scope and effect of Section 3(1) of the Mysore”Ni_’o_tor4<\/p>\n
Vehicles Taxation Act 1957 has held to the  ‘<\/p>\n
effect.   \u00e9<\/p>\n
“Sections 3 and 4 are    ._<\/p>\n
and the liability to pair the   Vad’\u00a7fa1ice.VViVs..3not <\/p>\n
dependant upon the vehic:le_ubeing  by a
\nCertificate of fitness  Eaten ifvvlthe vehicle
\nwas not in a roadxivorthyi’conditio.n’ -and could not
\nbe put touse  the necessary<\/p>\n
repairs 7_};)eing__. carried out,. V ‘the'””owner or person<\/p>\n
having p_o\u00a73ses’sio_nf’t- control of a vehicle is<\/p>\n
enjoliriedjto  taitllvonvlv\u00e9the Vehicle and then
\nseek’ :a’  “principle underlying the
\nTa2rati_on_ACt   motor vehicle issued a
\n Certi\ufb01cated of llegistration is to be deemed a
\nV-i-*’po’ten’tial usefof the roads all through the time the
\n   of Registration is current and therefore<\/p>\n
‘”.*1i;i’r;iet\u00a2~;1:ay tax under s.3(i) read with s4.”<\/p>\n
 The learned Single Judge in interpreting the<\/p>\n
  or3f’wgrd~\u00abgg.’vehic1es’ in WP No.5i452\/2004 has held that in<\/p>\n
it  plural it signi\ufb01es situations more than one and hence, it<\/p>\n
:'”\\ Iv
\n if<\/p>\n
Q<\/p>\n
:13<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
is not merely the vehicle involved in the accident<\/p>\n
requiring repairs or body building, but also the vehicle<\/p>\n
garaged for repair purpose and body building  <\/p>\n
to be included for granting exemption  be  l <\/p>\n
purposive interpretation which can be pgiven’:tovclau-sel5_.p f<\/p>\n
This would not be the situation insofar asrV\u00bbthe,:vehii;:le’s <\/p>\n
parked out side the State   or body
\nbuilding purpose other _ than  Vehicles involved in
\naccident inasmuch  Judge while
\nexamining   regardhto””the punctuation
\nnamely cpomznia-after.’ihetyyordaaocident’ as held in para
\n14 and;_l5_ tothe’~~folloWing_effect:
\nxA_’C:o1n:inaVis put as per the Rules of
\n Gramrnarr  indicates a slight pause or break
\n {between  of a sentence. It is well
\n  es.tab;1is}1ed that a punctuation is a minor
\nl. the construction of a statute. It
\n cannot be regarded as controlling element for
\ndetermining the meaning of a statute. In the<\/p>\n
“_\u00abcase of Lewis Pugh Evans Pugh Vs. Ashutosh
\nSen and other [AIR 1929 1′-‘.C. 69] it is held that<\/p>\n
W <\/p>\n
23<\/span>
\ncommas are no part of the statute. In the case
\nof Ashwind Kumar Ghose and another Vs.
\nArabinda Bose and another (AIR 1952 sceegsss)<\/p>\n
the Apex Court has held that <\/p>\n
cannot be allowed to control the  ‘<\/p>\n
of a text. It is held as follows;\n<\/p>\n
“punctuation is after alEl..ajj.niinor’—-elc111_entgf<\/p>\n
in the construction ofe..a:”statut’e:,g$;nd <\/p>\n
little attention is\ufb01”~paid.V’lt~o ‘it: ‘l_)y'”‘~–.TE”r1glish ‘ i<\/p>\n
Courts. ‘__Whengp_…aff.statute  carefully
\npunctuated._..\u00a7’sI3Adi_V_  doubt about its
\nmeaning, a_urveigli’tVshouideiindoubtedly be
\n V to the\u00bb i . I Punctuation
\nirnayg   uses iii) some cases, but it
\n____ H  _ i   regarded as a
\n_ controii.i’ng:V:V”‘~\u00abelentent and cannot be
\n i  the plain meaning of a<\/p>\n
text.’  A<\/p>\n
 the present case, the plain<\/p>\n
 .._of the text is very clear and the use<\/p>\n
 neither adds to it nor detracts from<\/p>\n
 its ordinary meaning. In my view, it does not<\/p>\n
disclose any legislative intention of providing<\/p>\n
Vii\ufb02exemption in respect of vehicles kept outside<\/p>\n
;'”\\ 3 “x4<\/p>\n
t e<\/p>\n
18. Hence we are of the View that View expressed
\nby the learned judge in WP. 51452\/ 2004 is erroneous
\nand we agree with the View expressed by
\njudge in WP 34342-343\/2004.  _<\/p>\n
circumstances, we are of the View tha.t—-\u00bbof:der”~.:()f-the W ‘V<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge passed in
\ndoes not call for interferen-e;e.___andh”ae\u00e9ordi;’1$1y;:dx2t3″e
\nthat c1ause–5 of the I10tif’iCati\ufb01{%jv\u00ab.V'(v;:1ig\u00a2t\u00a7.C1  not
\nimpose a restriction    of vehicles and<\/p>\n
thus dismiss the writ:ap;aea1Vand_  dismiss<\/p>\n
the Writ Pe’titib11s\\.:; _ Ne7’}Vb’rderVV.:as toxecists.<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n
sel-\n<\/p>\n
EUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Mario Pereira vs The Deputy Commissioner For … on 28 August, 2009 Author: V.Gopalagowda And Kumar 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\\\u00a73l)4A WRIT APPEAL […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMario Pereira vs The Deputy Commissioner For ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mario Pereira vs The Deputy Commissioner For ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-07T13:53:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mario Pereira vs The Deputy Commissioner For … on 28 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-07T13:53:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2402,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Mario Pereira vs The Deputy Commissioner For ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-07T13:53:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mario Pereira vs The Deputy Commissioner For … on 28 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mario Pereira vs The Deputy Commissioner For ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mario Pereira vs The Deputy Commissioner For ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-07T13:53:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mario Pereira vs The Deputy Commissioner For … on 28 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-07T13:53:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009"},"wordCount":2402,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009","name":"Mario Pereira vs The Deputy Commissioner For ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-07T13:53:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mario-pereira-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-for-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mario Pereira vs The Deputy Commissioner For … on 28 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237038","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237038\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}