HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:2261 of 2008 Dated:07.02.2008 Between: 1. E. Varadharajan, S/o R. Elayaperumal, Mudhaliarpet, Pondicherry. ..Petitioner And The Licensing Officer, O/o Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor. ..Respondent. HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:2261 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking to call for the records from the file of the respondent in connection with Demand Notice in Rc.No.R.No.33088/A2/2007, dated 17.10.2007 and quash the same. It is the case of the petitioner that his vehicle bearing No.PY 01/AE 1004 was seized under vehicle check report dated 7.10.2007 on certain irregularities. On the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.22093 of 2007, the Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary, RTA, Chittoor was directed to release the vehicle subject to certain conditions. The petitioner was also directed to show cause and participate in the enquiry. While so, the impugned demand notice was issued to the petitioner, according to which, a show cause notice dated 8.10.2007 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why tax Rs.1,28,625/- @ Rs.3675/- per seat per quarter as per G.O.Ms.No.180, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Tr.II) Department, dated 27.9.2008 should not be collected and the said notice was returned, and therefore, the impugned notice was issued. According to the petitioner, no show cause notice was issued to him and he never avoided to receive any notice and therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even though the show cause notice was issued, the same was not served on the petitioner and that on the presumption that the petitioner is avoiding to receive the notice, the impugned notice was issued against the principles of natural justice and therefore, the notice impugned is liable to be set aside. On a perusal of the impugned notice, it is apparent that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why tax should not be collected and the same was returned as undelivered by the postal authority duly recording the message on back side of the cover “the addressee left without instructions’’. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to submit any explanation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a fit case wherein the impugned notice can be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned notice. It is made clear that the petitioner shall appear before the authorities within two Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file his explanation/objections, if any, treating the impugned notice as show cause notice. The respondents are directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks thereafter from the date of filing of such objections/explanation by the petitioner. It is needless to observe that in case of default of his appearance before the authorities, the impugned notice becomes operative. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________ Justice G. Rohini Date: 7th February, 2008 Nn/Gurc. HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:2261 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 7.2.2008