- (1.) K. S. Varma, J. The petitioner held a regular stage carriage permit for the route Hardoi-Bewan-Jagdishpur. Under that permit the petitioner was plying vehicle USZ-348. The said permit was valid till 4-1-1979. It was renewed by the Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow in its meeting held on 23-4-1979. The averment in the petition is that since the aforesaid vehicle was out of order and could not be plied, the petitioner did not get the order of renewal endorsed on the permit. In para 4 of the petition it has been stated that by 4-9- 1980 the petitioner got the aforesaid vehicle repaired and the same day he made an application to the Taxation Officer, Sitapur praying "that the current tax for the current quarter be accepted so that the petitioner may obtain the certificate of fitness in respect of his vehicle and ply the same. The Taxation Officer, Sitapur rejected the application and directed the petitioner to deposit the road tax with effect from 1-1-1977 by an order dated 11-3-1981. Against the aforesaid order, dated 11-3-1981 the petitioner filed writ petition No. 2913 of 1981 before this Court. The operation of the said order dated 11-3-1981 was stayed by this Court's order dated 23-6-1981. The Taxation Officer thereafter accepted the current tax for the current quarter ending on 30-9-1981 from the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner obtained the certificate of fitness in respect of his above vehicle No. USZ 348. After obtaining the certificate of fitness in respect of the vehicle in question the petitioner approached respondent 2 for obtaining the endorsement of renewal order on his stage carriage permit in respect of vehicle USZ 348. It has also been stated in the petition that for obtaining the endorsement of renewal, there is no requirement of law for obtaining no objection certificate in respect of payment of taxes. The contention is that in regard to renewal of permits, the only requirement is that it will answer the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act in regard to conditions of renewal. If any tax is payable it is open to the authorities to take appropriate remedy for recovery of the same but endorsement on the permit cannot be withheld merely because the petitioner is in arrears of taxes. In para 3 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the permit has been renewed. The permit will, however, be effective for a period of three years after it is endorsed. It may be noted that no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties and there is no denial on their side that the permit has not been renewed. We shall, accordingly, proceed on the basis that the permit has been duly renewed. Once the conclusion is reached that the permit has been renewed the endorsement on it to enable it to be operative cannot be withheld merely because the petitioner is in arrears of payment of taxes. In this respect reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to Lakhi Prasad Bhagat v. East Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Bhagalpur (1976 AIT and Accident Cases 457 ). A perusal of the said decision would indicate that the petitioner was in arrears of taxes and renewal of the permit was refused on the ground of non-payment of arrears of taxes. The High Court quashed the order refusing to renew the permit. It may be noted that in regard to recovery of taxes there are statutes which deal with the procedure prescribed for the recovery of taxes. If anyone is in arrears then it is open to the authorities to recover the taxes in the manner provided for by the statutes but renewal of permit under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be withheld merely because he is liable to pay passenger tax and road tax. The Regional Transport Authority cannot insist on payment of tax due under any Act and it cannot take upon itself the burden of a Tax Collector. It was observed as follows in the above decision. "realisation of tax may be in the interest of the public exchequer and one may say, therefore, it is in the interest of the public, but that interest has got to be correlated to the plying of the bus. The two purposes have got to be direct or immediate connection between them. The insistence for payment of tax under Bihar Act 17 of 1961 cannot be an apposite consideration for grant or renewal of a stage carriage permit on the ground of the public generally having any interest in the matter of plying of the bus. " We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Patna High Court in Lekhi Prasad Bhagat East Behar Regional Transport Authority, Bhagalpur (supra ).
(2.) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the opposite parties to endorse the permit and direct the tax authorities not to assess and realise the passenger tax. Although we are inclined to issue a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties directing them to endorse the permit which has been renewed so that the petitioner may be able to ply his vehicle but we decline to make any direction in regard to recovery of taxes. If the petitioner is liable for any tax, it will be open to the appropriate authorities to take such steps as they are advised to take in regard to recovery of the same. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed in part. A writ of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties to make necessary endorsement on the permit which has been renewed in the name of the petitioner so that he is able to ply his vehicle. The other prayers made in the petition are refused. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition partly allowed. .;