CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2030 OF 1995 ******* In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ******* M/S RAM KRISHNA BUS SERVICE, PURULIA, through its partner- Pawan Kumar Lilha, At and P.O. Purulia, P.S. Purulia town, district- Purulia (West Bengal). ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. State Transport Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, Technical Building, Baily Road, patna. ….. Respondents. ******* For the Petitioner: N o n e. For the Respondents: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, A.C. to A.A.G.-III. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ******* S.K. Katriar, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.11.1994 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna, in terms of section 26 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Ordinance 1993, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected, and the order of the learned first authority directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,565.28p. towards additional tax, has been upheld. 2 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was, at the relevant point of time, the owner of a bus, was the holder of a valid permit from the transport authority of West Bengal, and was plying the bus between the State of West Bengal and the State of Bihar. He plied it from 1985 and onwards. He filed an application dated 30.8.1991, stating therein that he may be exempted from payment of additional road tax because he could not ply the bus for the reason that the permit has not been countersigned by the authorities in Bihar. The matter ultimately reached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1627 of 1993, which was disposed of by order dated 4.5.1993, whereby the matter was remitted to the State Transport Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The matter was rejected by the learned Transport Commissioner who formulated the two following questions for consideration: (1) Whether the permit holder would pay the Bihar Road tax including Additional tax for the period for which his permit was not countersigned by Bihar. It may be mentioned that permit has been issued by S.T.A., West Bengal. (2) The permit holder owes arrear road tax dues to Bihar from 1.7.1989 and additional tax dues from 3.8.1984. The prayer of the 3 permit holder is that he may be allowed to pay the arrear tax in instalments. He came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner had not plied the bus on the prescribed route. Secondly, the petitioner had approached the authorities after a lapse of about ten years, giving rise to the presumption that he had plied the bus and it was an after thought. In these circumstances, the application was rejected and he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,565.28p. The petitioner’s appeal before the departmental Secretary has been rejected by the impugned order on similar grounds. We agree with the reasonings assigned by the two authorities. It does not appear to be a bona fide application and is an after thought. We, therefore, reject the application for the reasons assigned in the orders of the two authorities. 3. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.K. Katriar, J.) Birendra Prasad Verma, J. I agree. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 31st day of August, 2010. S.K.Pathak/ (NAFR)