HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : ILASPUR Division Bench Coram : Hon’ble Shri H.L. Dattu, CJ & Hon’b!e Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J WRIT PETITION N0. 1977 OF 2002 PETmONER _ Bhilai Metador Transport Union through the Chief Secretary. Pamm jeet Singh (Pummi), aged about 46 ’years rig. Sector 11, Bhilai, Dist. Durg, CG. a?) VERSUS 1) Sfate of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Ministry of Transport, D.K.$. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. Shri Nan Kumar Patei; Transport Minister (Government ' of CG), Member — Officer lncharge, Raipur, CG. 3) Regional Transport Office, Durg, Dist. Durg. (CG). 4) Collector, Durg, Dist. Durg, G. C PRESENT: Shri Prashant Mishra, Addl. Advocate General for the respondents/State. RESPONDENTS Shri AN. Pandey, counsei for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 215‘ March 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by H.L. Dattu, Petitioner is a transport union. lt has called in question the notification dated 26-04-2002 issued by the State Government. By the impugned notification, the State Government has amended Chhattisgarh‘ B d Meier Yaan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 whereby the owners of the motor vehic’ies are asked to pay the life time tax 2) it is alieged in the writ petition that the impugned provision has no nexus with the object of the Act and further there is a discrimination about he old and new vehicies and, therefore. it is said that the'hotmcetion is ultra vires of the Act. 3) The chaiiehge in the Writ petition is no more debatable in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. Krishnappan and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 21$. in tge’éaid v decision the Apex Court observed as under : “27. For the aforestated reasons, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. As stated above, ’the impugned levy of life time tax is based on rational and, reasonable classification founded on an inteliigr’bte differentia having a rational relation to the object of the impugned ievyi - Accordingly‘ the appeals filed by the State succeed, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside, with no order as o costs.“ 4) in View of the iaw declared by the Apex Court, in our opinion, the impugned notification requires to be sustained by us. Accordingiyvthe foltowing : Order Petition is reieoted in View of the iaw declared by the Apex Court in the case of'State of Tamil Nadu (supra). Ordered accordingly. hx” Wrr’" a!“ * i“""i':j I ‘ ’7 #:Ef/ ._ Sd/Jx a L Way Kumar Shrivastava i ChiefJustice Jufiigrier " . t. 7v l. i L. t i