IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 4859 of 2005 Between: Rabindra Panda, s/o Bhaskar Panda, Nehru Nagar-8, Berhampur, Ganjam District, Orissa ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Transport Commissioner, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 2 Motor vehicle Inspector, Palasa, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order, direction more particularly writ in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in issuing the show cause notice dt.20-01-2005 contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court dt.22-12-2004 passed in W.P.No.24001 of 2004, by directing the "Whether the petitioner has violated any of the provisions of the motor vehicles Act by plying the vehicle on the roads of state of Andhra Pradesh has to be decided by the competent authority" without deciding by issuing impugned proceeding is illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, unsustainable and in violation of the second proviso of sub clause (1) and proviso (7) of Section 88 of M.V.Act and consequently set aside the show cause notice dt.20-01-2005 of the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.A.PADMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court, at the admission stage, made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 4859 of 2005 ORDER: Challenging the show cause notice dated 20-01-2005 issued by the 1st respondent-Deputy Transport Commissioner, Srikakulam, contrary to the orders of this Court dated 22-12-2004 passed in W.P.No.24001 of 2004, the present writ petition has been filed. 2 . The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act, 1988’), the petitioner paid the necessary tax to the Orissa Government after obtaining permit and therefore, the petitioner has no need to pay any further tax. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Transport opposed the same. 4. According to the petitioner’s case, a show cause notice was issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner on 20-1-2005 to show cause and explain as to why tax of Rs.48,350/- should not be collected from him for the QE 31-12-2004 and to give explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. 5. Taking into consideration, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also in the writ petition, without entering into the merits of the case, I feel it consider to give a direction to the 1st respondent to take appropriate decision on considering the contentions raised by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1988. 6 . Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent-Deputy Transport Commissioner to take appropriate decision as per the provisions of the Act, 1988 duly considering the representation that may be given by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of explanation that may be given by the petitioner, if no final order has been passed in pursuance of the show cause notice, dated 20-01-2005. No costs. __________________ March 11, 2005 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. B/o. KVR To 1 The Deputy Transport Commissioner, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 2 The Motor vehicle Inspector, Palasa, Srikakulam District. 3. Two C.Cs to GP for Transport, High Court of AP Buildings, Hyderabad. 4 2 C.D copies.