MUKESH TEXTILE MILLS P LTD Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER AND LINCENSING OFFICER SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by M/s. Mukesh, Textile Mills (P) Ltd., (Part of Tungabhadra Sugar Works (P) Ltd.) is directed against the order made by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Shimoga Division, Shimoga, in the appeal filed by the petitioner, against the demand, notice dated 14-12-1978 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Shimoga,.

(2.) It is stated by the petitioner that on 28-9-1976, the Company intimated the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Officer that its vehicle MYS 8442 would, not be used on road uptq 31.12.1977. Along with the intimation of non-user the petitioner-Company also surrendered the documents pertaining to, the vehicle in, accordance, with the instructions contained, in the, notification issued by the State Government under S. 16 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation, Act (hereinafter referred, to as the Act).

(3.) On 30-11-1978 the petitioner-Company wrote to the 1st respondent intimating non-use of the, vehicle for a further period upto 31-12-1980. But, in so far as the Regional Transport Officer is concerned, there was no intimation of non-user between, 1-1-1978 to 30-11-1978. It is the case of the petitioner that one of its clerks played mischief in sending the, original intimation of non-user and set the date at .31-12-1977 instead of 31-12-1978. The first respondent had issued the impugned demand notice as per Ext. A for the period between 1-1-1978 to 30-11-1978 on the ground that there was no, intimation as per the afore-mentioned notification of the Government. It is against the, said notice that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent the Deputy Commissioner. In the appeal, the demand notice was confirmed in spite of the petitioner-Company Pleading before the appellate authority that the intention to surrender was for the period ending 31-12-1978 in the first instance and that the,' mischief committed by the concerned clerk was being dealt with by the Company in separate domestic proceedings for incorrect intimation. The appellate authority has rejected the, plea and has taken a strict view of the matter and has observed as follows: