IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3322 of 2008 Date of decision: 5.3.2008 Smt. Mohinder Kaur ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Shri Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . The petitioner is seeking issuance of a direction to respondent No.3 i.e. District Transport Officer, Ferozepur to consider and decide his representation dated 14.9.2007(Annexure P-4) with regard to waiving of tax of Bus No.PB-04/C/9953 for the period the bus did not operate on the route Bhagta-Faridkot. The grievance of the petitioner is that she operated her bus w.e.f. 17.1.2001 to 29.4.2001 and thereafter due to various compelling reasons, she did not operate the bus and consequently, the Registration Certificate of the same was deposited with the office of the DTO, Bathinda vide application dated 21.12.2001. Thereafter, she had been making representations to the respondents for waiving of the tax for the period he did not operate the bus. The respondents are sitting over the matter for the last about 6 years and no decision has been taken so far by the respondents on the representations made by the petitioner. The last CWP No.3322 of 2008 -2- representation is stated to be dated 2.11.2007. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner has not even placed any material on record in support of her claim for waiver of tax. Moreover, as per the averments of the petitioner herself, she stopped operating the bus w.e.f 29.4.2001 whereas the present writ petition has been filed after lapse of period of more than 6 years. Even the alleged representation for waiver of tax was given by her on 26.3.2004 i.e. about three years before the filing of the present writ petition. No plausible explanation has been given by the petitioner for the delay in filing the present writ petition. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain this petition on the ground of delay and laches. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE March 5, 2008 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) ps JUDGE