K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—Three writ petitioners, registered owners of different vehicles have joined together to file the above writ petition to seek issuance of provisional Motor Vehicles Tax Token with respect to their vehicles, for the current period; despite there being arrears of tax with respect to the aforesaid motor vehicles, for the earlier periods. Insofar as the arrears are concerned, the claim is that the petitioners have submitted applications to exempt/write off the motor vehicle taxes for various periods; during which period the vehicles were not plied on the roads since there was a pending dispute with the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity ‘BSRTC’) and citing the demand raised against the registered owners by the BSRTC, the stage carriage vehicles were denied permit by the Road Transport Authority (R.T.A).

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out Annexure-P/2 judgment, in which a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the authority to consider the application for permit afresh on its own merits, without taking into consideration the amounts due to the BSRTC. The BSRTC was reserved liberty to take action for recovery of any amounts due from the petitioner, in accordance with law; but it was categorically held that the renewal of the petitioner’s permit cannot be rejected on the sole ground that some amounts were due to the BSRTC. It is pointed out that the vehicles were not plied for various periods, as is seen from Annexure-P/1 series. Applications have been submitted by the petitioners, as per Annexure-P/5 series for exemption from tax.

3. The petitioner also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Nirbhay Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others; 1993 SCC Online Pat 27 : 1995 (1) PLJR 60. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to exemption from tax, for the periods in which the vehicles were not plied, as is evident from Annexure-P/6 and they are hence, entitled to issuance of tax tokens for the current periods, which tax amounts, they are willing to satisfy.

4. At the outset, we have to notice that the judgment produced as Annexure-P/2 deals with quite a different matter; unconnected with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 and was filed by only one of the petitioners herein; the first petitioner. There is clear misjoinder of parties since though the claim raised is of issuance of Motor Vehicles Tax Token for the current periods, after exempting the arrears/dues; the tax liability is for different stage carriages and the period for which exemption is claimed is also quite distinct and different. There is absolutely no reason to find a common cause of action arising in the case of the petitioners.

5. Be that as it may; in the writ petition filed by the first petitioner herein, the claim was against the rejection of the application for permit for two stage carriages bearing Registration No. BR06PB9099 and BR06PB9095; which rejection was also on the ground of dues payable to the BSRTC. As was rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the declaration in the judgment of the learned Single Judge is only to the effect that the dues of third parties cannot restrict the consideration of an application for permit by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA). This does not in any event absolve the petitioner or the two vehicles on which the earlier writ petition was filed by the first petitioners; from paying tax, as per the taxation enactment, on their vehicles kept for use on the roads.

6. Nirbhay Kumar (supra) considered the claim of exemption under Section 9A of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930 (for brevity ‘Act of 1930’). Therein, this Court had found that on 12.12.1991, the State Government had prescribed the mode of inquiry contemplated under Section 9A of the Act for according exemption, according to which the claim has to be preferred in a prescribed form, coupled with an affidavi