IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 4268 of 2009 Between: S.Venkat Swamy S/o. S.Kattaiah, R/o. Ladella Village Atmakur Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Memo No.8708/B/08 dated 25-09-2008 issued by the respondent in rejecting to exempt tax for a period the vehicle bearing No.AP-36U-8064 was not run from 1-1-2007 to till date and quash the same declaring it as bad and illegal and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dated 25-9-2008 whereby the application filed by him claiming exemption from payment of tax has been rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not plying the vehicle in question and, therefore, he had made a request claiming exemption from payment of tax. The said application has been rejected by virtue of the impugned order and, therefore, this petition has been filed. In pursuance of the notice issued, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has submitted that the application was not submitted along with relevant documents and that the petitioner had not intimated in advance that the vehicle was not to be used. It is his case that as per the relevant regulation, an application should have been submitted by the owner of the vehicle before he decides to put the vehicle to non-use. He has submitted that for the afore-stated reasons, the application has been rejected. Upon hearing the learned Advocates, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the impugned order for the reason that the petitioner had not submitted the application before he decided not to use the vehicle for a particular period. The application, which was filed at a belated stage, could not have been entertained by the respondent for the simple reason that the authority rejecting the application had no opportunity to check whether the vehicle was in fact used or not. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, rejected with no order as to costs. _____________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 3rd March, 2009. GRR