IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21296 of 2008(I) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.A.SCARIA, MATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE KURISMOODU, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT: -------------------- SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, (REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER), IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 21296 OF 2008 I -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P2 and P4 and seeks a direction to pass orders on the application for replacement of vehicle, adjourned twice vide Ext.P2, on merits with notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He also seeks a direction to consider Ext.P5 representation and expeditiously adjudicate on the claim for exemption. Pending the Writ Petition, a decision has been taken on the G Form filed by the petitioner seeking exemption from payment of tax and an order has been communicated to the petitioner rejecting the claim. Admittedly, this is appealable and the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner will avail the remedy under Section 23 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act during the period of limitation. 2. This is a case where the Permit of the vehicle in WPC. 21296/08 I 2 question expires on 21.8.2008. Petitioner filed application seeking replacement of the existing vehicle with another vehicle. The application for replacement of the vehicle is not being considered on the ground that there are arrears of motor vehicle tax which, according to petitioner, is covered by G Form which, no doubt, has culminated in the rejection of the G Form which action, the petitioner submits that, is subject to Appeal under Section 23 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and further Revision. It is the case of the petitioner that the fact that there are arrears of tax in respect of the vehicle, at any rate, cannot be a ground for not processing and taking a decision on the application for replacement of the vehicle. Learned counsel took me through Section 81 which deals with renewal of Permit and Rule 174 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and pointed out that under Rule 174 which deals with replacement of vehicle, there is no provision for refusing replacement on the WPC. 21296/08 I 3 ground of arrears of tax. He would also bring to my notice a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C). No.15775/05 C dated 7.7.2005 wherein it was held as follows: "This Court, in a few similar cases, has already held that clearance of arrears of tax need be insisted only at the time of issuance of the Permit. Unless the applications for renewal of permit or replacement of the vehicle are not considered in time, the same will create further complications resulting in serious prejudice to the bus operators, without any corresponding benefit to the State. In view of the above position, Exts.P1 and P3 are quashed. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the applications of the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle and also renewal of the permit within two months from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the arrears of tax have already been cleared. This submission is recorded." WPC. 21296/08 I 4 3. No doubt, learned Government Pleader submits that the facts of that case would show that arrears have been paid. Counsel for petitioner submits that order may be passed on the replacement application, but the endorsement need not be made without the arrears being cleared or it is found that there is no tax in arrear by the appellate authority. 4. I would think that there is some substance involved in the petitioner's contention. I would think, at any rate, that the processing of the application can be made and a decision can be taken on the same in accordance with law. But, the actual endorsement need be made only after either it is found in appeal that there are no arrears or the arrears as found are cleared by the petitioner. Therefore, while relegating the petitioner to pursue the remedy under Section 23 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act as against the communication of the order rejecting the G Form, it is also directed that the second respondent will consider the application. But, it is further ordered that the endorsement will not be made till after the Appeal or further proceeding is WPC. 21296/08 I 5 disposed of and depending upon the result of the same, it is found that there is no tax to be paid or if the petitioner pays the tax. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy// PS to Judge