IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34811 of 2008(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- E.X.TITUS, ETTURUTHIL HOUSE HARITHA ROAD, VENNALA PO, KOCHI-28. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER TAXATION OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER (TAX) SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 34811 OF 2008 (T) ==================== Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The application for renewal of certificate of fitness was rejected by Ext.P3 order of the respondent on the ground of tax liability. It is this order which is challenged mainly relying on Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act and contending that liability of tax is not a matter of concern when certificate of fitness is applied for. 2. Learned Government Pleader rightly referred me to Rule 73 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which provides that no authorised testing station shall accept an application for the grant of renewal of a certificate of fitness unless the same is accompanied by a tax clearance certificate from the RTO or Motor Vehicles Inspector having jurisdiction in the area to the effect that the vehicle is not in arrears of motor vehicles tax or any compounding fee. 3. In the light of Rule 73 referred to above, Ext.P3 order cannot be assailed. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp