R.A.Sharma, Markandey Katju, JJ. - (1.) PETITIONER , who claims to be owner of stage carriage No. URI 793, has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Joint Commissioner (Yatrikar) Lucknow to decide his representation dated 3 -7 -1989. Further prayer for appropriate direction to Regional Transport Authority, Varanasi, to grant him interim temporary permit till the writ is decided, has also been made. From perusal of the writ petition it appears that a notice dated 18 -12 -1991 under Rule 8(1) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Motor Gadi Yatrikar Adhiniyam, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been issued to the petitioner by the Passenger Tax Officer, Varanasi, calling upon him to show -cause as to why action under Sections 6 and 8 of the Act be not taken against him for not having filed any return in respect of his stage carriage for the period from 5 -2 -1990 to 30 -1 -1991. The petitioner in response to the aforesaid notice made a representation before passenger tax officer requesting him to postpone the proceedings till his representation is decided by the Joint Transport Commissioner. As the Joint Transport Commissioner has not decided the controversy raised by the petitioner before him, this writ petition has been filed for the reliefs referred herein before.
(2.) THE Act provides for levy of tax on passengers carried in certain classes of public service vehicles in the State of U.P. Sections 6 and 7 of the Act require submission of the return by an operator and payment of tax by him into Government Treasury. Section 8 provides for determination of tax when no return is filed or when returns are incorrect or incomplete. Section 9 deals with reassessment in cases where the tax has escaped assessment, sub -section (2) of Section 6 provides for imposition of penalty where without any reasonable cause the operator fails to submit return. Section 10 provides for penalty for non -payment of tax. Section 11 authorises recovery of tax and penalty as arrears of land revenue. Provision for appeal against various orders of Taxation Officer has been made in Section 13 of the Act. Rules framed under the Act provide for procedure in detail regarding the submission of returns, payment of tax and various other things in connection therewith. The Act is a complete code for levy of tax on passengers carried in public service vehicles. The officers, who are to determine the tax and penalty and who are to take action in connection therewith have been specified by the Act and Rules framed thereunder. The Joint Transport Commissioner, before whom the petitioner has made representations, is not one of the authorities, who has been entrusted with any statutory function under the Act. The Act does not confer any power on the Joint Transport Commissioner to issue any direction to the Taxation Officer, in connection with assessment/reassessment and imposition of penalty, which pertain to the judicial power of the Taxation Officer. There is also no provision in the Act or rules framed thereunder, for making representation before the Joint Transport Commissioner. Under the Act, in the matter of imp position of tax and penalty as well as assessment and reassessment and other matters in connection therewith, power has been conferred on the Taxation Officer against whose order provisions for appeal has been made before the Deputy Transport Commissioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no other authority, except the Taxation Officer, can grant any relief to the petitioner. Under these circumstances making of representations before the Joint Transport Commissioner, were uncalled for and not maintainable. When the law provides for redressal of grievances by statutory authorities in the manner laid down therein invoking of any other forum or manner for claiming relief in connection therewith is not permissible.
(3.) THAT apart when the law does not impose any obligation on the Joint Transport Commissioner to entertain and to decide the representations, writ of mandamus cannot be issued by this court requiring him to decide the same. In this connection reference may be made to the case of the Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co -operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh and others : AIR 1977 SC 2149 wherein the Supreme Court has laid down as follows: There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance, (see Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian -cum -Managing Officer, : (1966) 1 SCR 120 : (AIR 1966 SC 334) Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College : (1962) Supp (2) SCR 144 : (AIR 1962 SC 1210) and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar ( : AIR 1973 SC 964).;