IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9568 of 1998 Between: N.Rajack Miah, S/o. N. Ghouse Miah, 5-62, Kota Street, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa. ...Petitioner And Regional Transport Officer, Kadapa. ...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 call for the records from the file of the Respondent in Memo.No.1679/A7/97, dated 11.03/.998 and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or orders or direction and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Noushad Ali Counsel for the respondent : Government Pleader for Transport The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Anil R. Dave, C.J.) 1) Being aggrieved by an order dated 11th March, 1998, this petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is in the business of plying transport vehicles. 2) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, in a nutshell, are as under: By a demand notice dated 31st July, 1997, the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs.40,932/- by way of tax. The said notice had been challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.32577 of 1997 in this Court. The said petition was allowed on 8th December, 1997. While allowing the said petition, this Court had permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent so that after considering the contents of the representation, a fresh decision can be taken by the respondent. In pursuance of the afore-stated order, a representation dated 15th December, 1997 was made by the petitioner. The said representation was duly considered and ultimately, the impugned order dated 11th March, 1998 was passed. 3) Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the record of the case, we find that the petitioner had given an application to the effect that he would not ply his vehicle bearing No.TCB 8147 because of a mechanical failure. In spite of the said fact, the petitioner was plying the vehicle under a fictitious number. The said fact was noticed by a responsible officer of the respondent and, therefore, proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner, whereby demand notice dated 31st July, 1997, which has been referred to hereinabove, had been issued. 4) Looking to the facts of the case, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order for the reason that the facts relied upon by the respondent for passing the impugned order are correct. In view of the fact that the petitioner was plying the vehicle under a fictitious number in spite of the fact that non-usage certificate of the vehicle had been granted, in our opinion, the respondent was justified in imposing tax for plying the afore-stated vehicle. 5) The petition is, therefore, rejected with no order as to costs. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 11th June, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. ……REGISTRAR To 1. The Regional Transport Officer, Kadapa. 2. Two copies to the Govt. Pleader for Transport, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 3. Two C.D. copies. ARS