IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21217 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.V.THOMAS, ALAPPATTU HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM, KODANNUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER/ THE TAXATION OFFICER, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 21217 of 2010 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:- “ Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writs, order or direction, directing the respondent, Regional Transport Officer/Taxation Officer, Thrissur to accept tax for a single day operation as directed in O.P.No.15328/2997, for the single day operation as contract carriage without permit, done by stage carriage KL-8C-6100.” 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the stage carriage bearing No. KL-8C-6100 belonging to the petitioner operating in the route Peechi Dam-Thrissur- Palakkad on the strength of a valid permit had to be operated as a contract carriage on 18-04-2010 for conveyance, for a marriage party. While so, the vehicle was intercepted on the said day issuing Ext.P1 'check report' and finally, leading to the issuance of Ext.P2 charge memo. The learned counsel submits that the WPC.21217/2010 : 2 : operation of the vehicle as a contract carriage for 'one day' cannot attract a higher tax liability than Rs.330/- by virtue of the statutory prescription and also in view of the position made clear by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits with reference to the admitted materials on record and also making a reference to the judgment dated 20-05- 2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.14382/2010 that, though the liability of the petitioner to satisfy the tax in respect of a single day operation as contract carriage is only Rs.330/-, the petitioner is still bound to satisfy the 'compounding fee' as prescribed, if the offence in respect of Ext.P2 charge memo is intended to be compounded, which ranges from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/- as provided under Section 86(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court finds that, it is of course a matter of option for the petitioner to consider and decide whether he should either compound the offence or should face the charge. Leaving it open to be taken up separately, the liability of the petitioner to satisfy the 'tax' is declared as Rs.330/- in respect of the 'single day' operation of the WPC.21217/2010 : 3 : vehicle and this amount shall be satisfied by the petitioner forthwith. This will be subject to the further course of action and outcome of Ext.P2 charge memo raised against the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) aks