IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.15647 of 1997 Between: A.Bhaskara Rao, S/o.Sri Suryanarayana, 35 years, R/o.Kakinada in East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Licensing Officer, Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kakinada in East Godavari District. 2. The Motor Vehicles Inspector, Kakinada, Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kakinada in East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records from the file of the 1st respondent in his Memo.R.No.1306/A1/97, relating the bus A.H.P.4415 and quash his order dt.01.07.1997 made therein, with a direction to the 1st respondent to refund the tax paid for the quarter ending 31.12.1996, for the period from 04.10.1996 to 31.12.1996 to the petitioner, immediately and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.15647 of 1997 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioner is a transport operator, who filed this Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking a Writ of Certiorari assailing the proceedings of the first respondent in Memo R.No.1306/A1/97 dated 01.07.1997, whereby the petitioner was refused the request to refund the tax paid for the quarter ending for the period from 04.10.1996 to 31.12.1996 in respect of the bus bearing No.AHP 4415. The case of the petitioner, admittedly, is that during the above said period, the bus has undergone repairs. Since there being no plying as such, the petitioner would be entitled for refund. However, the same has been refused and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that as per the impugned order no such refund is permissible. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that admittedly, the petitioner has not paid tax in respect of the said vehicle and it is only when pointed out, he made the payment and subsequently, he seeks refund of the same. Having regard to such circumstances, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief as such. As rightly refused by the authorities, we do not find any merits to grant the relief as sought for. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J) 12th March 2008 RRB