IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1681 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 05.02.2008 Malli Bus Service Regd., Near Bus Stand, Moga .... PETITIONER Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.10.2006, passed by respondent No.2, whereby application of the petitioner for renewal of its regular stage carriage permits was refused; as well as the order dated 18.9.2007, passed by respondent No.1, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned orders. In the present case, the petitioner, who was holding two stage carriage permits, filed an application under Section 81 of the Motor CWP No. 1681 of 2008 -2- Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), for renewal of those permits, which was required to be filed 15 days before the expiry of the permits. Though the said application was filed late by two days, but the same was entertained by respondent No.2 and the petitioner was asked to produce some documents, which were required to be filed under Section 81 (4) of the Act. When the petitioner did not produce those documents, including upto date tax clearance certificate from the District Transport Officer, another opportunity was given, but in spite of that the petitioner did not produce the requisite documents. Therefore, respondent No.2 dismissed the application for renewal of the permits of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1, who found that the petitioner has been operating the vehicles under the said permits without payment of the Special Road Tax/ Token Tax. It was found that as on date, the petitioner was in arrears of tax to the tune of Rs. 1,09,000/- and until the said amount is deposited, the District Transport Officer cannot issue the No Due Certificate, which the petitioner was required to produce before its permits are renewed. While coming to this conclusion, respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities below have acted illegally and without jurisdiction while dismissing the application of the petitioner for renewal of the permits on the aforesaid ground, as under sub-section (4) of Section 81 of the Act, the Regional CWP No. 1681 of 2008 -3- Transport Authority cannot reject the application on that ground. He submits that renewal can be declined in case the applicant had been punished twice or more for any of the offences within 12 months reckoned from 15 days prior to the date of consideration of the application committed as a result of stage carriage services by the applicant by plying any vehicle without payment of tax during the grace period allowed for the payment of such tax. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Hardev Motor Transport v. State of M.P. and others, (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 613. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to accept his contention. Undisputedly, the petitioner is plying the vehicle without payment of tax on such vehicles. It has not paid the tax for the last more than one year and till the date of decision of the appeal by respondent No.1, the petitioner has not cleared the outstanding tax liability. From the impugned orders, it is clear that in spite of the opportunity granted, the petitioner did not clear the outstanding arrears of tax. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner does not support the case of the petitioner, as the following observations have been made in the same : “The transport authorities of the State have the power to check a vehicle so as to ascertain whether payment of tax is being evaded. They have been conferred with the power to detain a vehicle. They can release the vehicle only when tax as demanded is paid. Even the power of the court to release the CWP No. 1681 of 2008 -4- vehicle has been taken away unless tax is paid and the court can satisfy itself as to whether a tax is paid or not only on the receipt of the certificate issued by the transport authorities of the State. The power of the transport authorities, therefore, is very wide. However, only because a wide power has been conferred the same by itself would not lead to a presumption that the same is capable of misuse or on that count alone the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution would be attracted. But, when a statute confers a wide power upon a statutory authority, a closer scrutiny would be required.” In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition, filed by the petitioner, challenging the aforesaid orders, in exercise of the discretionary power of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 05, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE