A M VELU MUDALIAR Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1974 (for brevity "the TNMVT Act") The petitioner was a stage carriage operator and was plying vehicle no.TDJ7070 between Chithoor and Kanagamma Chatram on an inter-state route. It was his claim that the bus was off the road w.e.f. 1.10.1988 due to major engine repair. He claimed that the stoppage was intimated in advance on 30.9.88 and documents in this regard were submitted in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules to the first respondent. He had also paid M.V.Tax for the quarter ending 30.9.88. He also stated that the fitness certificate (FC) for the vehicle expired on 20.3.1989. That was also intimated in the stoppage report and that he intended to resume service after replacement. It was his case that the vehicle was initially garaged at the workshop at Sholingur and a physical verification report was submitted to the Motor Vehicle Inspector at Ranipet. The verifications were done on 29.12.88, 7.3.89 and 24.5.89. As the vehicle could not be repaired at Sholingur, it was towed with the help of a lorry for carrying out the repairs at Tirupathi. This fact was also intimated to the 1st respondent by letter dated 8.2.91.

(3.) The petitioner received a notice from the 1st respondent's office calling for explanation under Rule 160-K of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 22.12.1989 stating that the vehicle was off the road due to repairs and for replacement and therefore, he wanted the authority to grant permission under Rule 160-K of the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to the stoppage report w.e.f. 1.10.1988. The petitioner also paid Rs.1500/- levied as a compounding fee for non-performance of the vehicle.