IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.971 of 2010 Date of decision : June 23, 2011 Pawan Kumar Baniyal …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, Judge(Oral) By means of this petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to order Annexure P-6, dated 2nd January, 2010, passed by Principal Secretary (Transport) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the special tax exemption granted to the petitioner vide order dated 2nd May, 2006, Annexure P-4, was withdrawn. 2. From the material on record, it is obvious that the petitioner is a transport operator owning a number of buses. Two of his buses, being HP-29-2511 and HP-29- 3211, met with accidents and became total loss. The petitioner made a representation to the State Government that he may be exempted from paying Special Road Tax (SRT) for the period when the buses Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… were total loss and had not been replaced by any new buses. The petitioner in his representation also claimed that these buses were being run on Dharampur-Reckong Peo and Seoh-Sungra routes. Accepting the word of the petitioner, the State Government granted exemption to the petitioner vide Notification Annexure P-4, in respect of Bus No.HP-29-2511, from 9th February, 2001 to 3rd June, 2004 and in case of Bus No.HP-29-3211 from 2nd May, 2000 to 16th July, 2004. In both the cases the exemption was granted for the period of the validity of the route permits in question. Thus, basically the case set up by the petitioner was that on account of the total loss of the buses, he could not run buses on these two routes and, therefore, the representation for exemption from payment of SRT was made. 3. It appears that in the year 2009 some complaints were made against the petitioner, in which it was alleged that the petitioner had in fact been plying buses on the aforesaid routes during the period for which he had obtained exemption from payment of tax. 4. An inquiry was conducted into the matter by the Regional Transport Officer, Solan. The petitioner was associated in the inquiry and when his statement was being recorded, he was specifically told by the Inquiry Officer that the Inquiry Officer intends to examine other persons and whether the petitioner would like to cross- …3… examine the said persons. The petitioner said that he did not want to cross-examine the persons. After examination of a number of witnesses and taking into consideration certain documents, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner had obtained the exemption by misstating the facts. This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction is not expected to go into the factual aspects of the matter or go into the factual findings given in the inquiry report. 5. However, with a view to satisfy the judicial conscience, I have gone through the inquiry report. Two striking facts emerge from the said inquiry report. Whereas the petitioner had claimed that he was not plying any buses on the aforesaid two routes, he obtained certificates from the Second in Command of GREF and the Assistant Engineer, National Highway concerned. In these certificates, it was mentioned that the two other buses of the petitioner being HP-28-2937 and HP-29-3411 were held up in District Kinnaur. The certificate of GREF shows that these two buses were held up at Wangtoo from 7th July, 2000 to 6th October, 2000, whereas the certificate of Assistant Engineer, National Highway shows that the buses were held from 7th July, 2000 to 31st July, 2000. There is some difference of period in these certificates, but the fact remains that these are the certificates …4… obtained by the petitioner himself, which show that he had sent his buses to District Kinnaur. 6. The petitioner does not have any other route permit for Kinnaur, as is apparent from his statement recorded before the Inquiry Officer that he had sent his buses for special party but could not obtain special route permit. This explanation cannot be accepted. If this had been true, the petitioner would have mentioned this fact at some stage prior to the inquiry proceedings. 7. Another important aspect of the matter is that the certificates, which the petitioner had obtained, that his buses did not operate on these routes from Sarkaghat, had been issued by the Adda Incharge. The officials of the HRTC clearly stated before the Inquiry Officer that the Adda Incharge had no concern with the private buses. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Inquiry Report is based on no evidence and should be quashed. 8. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, then argued that before any order could be passed, the principles of natural justice required that copy of Inquiry Report should have been supplied to him and he should have been asked to furnish his comments. I am unable to accept this contention. The petitioner was associated with the inquiry and when the Inquiry Report was issued after following proper procedure, the State had to act on the same. In any event, a person, who is …5… guilty of misstating and misrepresentation of facts, cannot claim the benefit of the principles of natural justice. 9. The last contention of Mr. Goel is that before any recovery is ordered, the petitioner be given an opportunity to explain what amount is due against him. To this extent, the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in his submission. Therefore, this petition is disposed of by upholding the impugned order, but with a further direction that before any recovery is made from the petitioner, he shall be associated and allowed to put forth his view point, with regard to the amount of tax due. No costs. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. June 23, 2011(sd) ( Deepak Gupta ), J