IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37339 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.M.ASHRAF, MUBARAK MANZIL, VANDIPERIYAR. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IDUKKI, IDUKKI P.O., PIN-685 603. BY ADV.SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.37339 of 2010-N ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing No.KL-06/B 4700, which was plied on the basis of regular permit, as evidenced from Ext.P2. The vehicle was having seating capacity of 21 in all. The petitioner submitted a request for issuing clearance certificate for withdrawal of the vehicle in question from the permit and for making it replaced by a new vehicle. Ext.P3 is the letter issued by the respondent in reply to such request. Through Ext.P3, the petitioner was directed to produce the vehicle after making necessary alterations by increasing the seating capacity to 23 in all, in order to endorse the same in the registration certificate. Further it is stated that the clearance certificate can be issued only if the petitioner remits arrears of tax on the basis of enhancement of seating capacity. 2. According to the respondent the vehicle in W.P(C) No.37339 of 2010-N 2 question is having wheel base of 310 cm. and therefore it ought to have been fitted with 23 seats in all. 3. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 on the ground that the demand for arrears of tax on the basis that the vehicle in question ought to have been fitted with 23 seats is unsustainable. It is evident that as per the endorsement contained in Ext.P1 registration certificate, the vehicle was permitted to be operated on the basis of seating capacity of 21 in all. Under such circumstances, the question is as to whether the respondent is entitled to insist for payment of arrears of tax on the basis that the vehicle ought to have been fitted with 23 seats. The issue now stands covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, reported in Shiju V. Regional Transport Officer, Thrissur (2010(4) KHC 883), wherein it is held that such retrospective demand is not sustainable. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P3 order is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate W.P(C) No.37339 of 2010-N 3 orders on the request made by the petitioner seeking clearance certificate, without insisting for payment of arrears on the basis of enhancement of seating capacity. 5. However, it is made clear that the respondent will be at liberty to insist on enhancement of seating capacity on a prospective basis, if the vehicle is to be operated on the strength of any permit. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab