TE EHGEI CURT CEETIaEARE AT BILASPUR (CG). IN E O OF A writ Petition No é L( /2001 . [ Pett tionr e Ms aj nandgaon Raadlines, Thugh Smt. Gurusharan Pail Garcha, wife of Shri Preetam Sing} Garcha, aged about 43 years, Fartner, r/o Civil Lines Raipnr (CG} . Ver s s u nd :1. The Regional Transport Authority, Ratpur (CG). The Tax Officer/ 2. Regonal Transport Officer, Raj nadgaon (66}. %** T ETIN UmER CLE 226 OF TIES CONSTITUTION ND : / R ro Respoents { i n wRI PTIO ARTI .OF IIA XLHC—22 gamma, ~Chhattisgayh, BilaSpur - w P No. 164/2001 W 19g ’ mm mm 9/2/2001 Heard Mr. B.K». Rawa'L, le.ar'ned counsel for the petitipner and Mr. Ra‘nvir Singh, learned GA £or ”Stateo The impugned order is dated 1/12/2000 by’ which route permit has been refused on the ground that motor vehicle tax was not paid for certain period i.é., for the period from May, 1998 to September; 1999. It :Ls contendéd that 1n Lfact there was no default of payment of route tax. In supyort of thle contentxon, documents Vlde Annexures P/8, P/9 & P/lO have beer :filed. The said documents relate to certificate is ‘ ed by the Tax Officer to say that toere was no tax du recoverable \from the petitioner. 3;.H¢8is dated 22/8/1999 ich Lstates that dues have been Ipaid upto 31/10/1999. E .p/9 indicates that tax has been paid from 1/5/1998 to 30/ /1999. Ovn ‘the basis of notice , 0 issued, the Regional Tran port Authority at Raipur, rejected the application to issue oute permit. On perusal of the af resaid documents and after hearitg Mr. B.K. Rawat, learned c unsel for the petnoner and as 'Well as Mr. Ranvir Sivngh, learned GA for State, I am of the View'rthat it would be re sonable forme to direct respon— dent no.1 to examine the atter on the basis of the docu- 1;, mews XI-HC—22 XI‘HC’22