” The challenge made in this petition filed under Articles 226-227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 4.7.1991(4.7.1995) at Annexure-C passed by the Joint Director of Transport, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad as also the order dated 28.5.1996 Annexure A passed by the Regional Transport Officer, Jamnagar refusing to accept the request of the petitioner for non-use of her vehicle (Omnibus) for the period from 1.8.1994 to 30.11.1994 and ordering the petitioner to pay Rs.22500.00 + penalty.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband died on account of cancer on 20.10.1991. He was the owner of the designated omnibus bearing registration No. GRP 3581. She was doing the household work and not conversant with the law governing the motor vehicle but as legal representative, registered ownership of the said bus was transferred in her name. Composite tax for the said bus was paid up to 30.4.1994 under section 3-A of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (' the Act' for short) and the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1959 (' the Rules' for short). As the bus required repairs, declaration in the prescribed form NT was submitted for the period from 1.5.1994 to 30.11.1994. The petitioner has averred that though the non-use is intimated by the petitioner in prescribed manner for the period from 1.5.94 to 30.11.94, respondent No. 2 did not sanction non-use for the period from 1.8.94 to 30.11.94 which resulted in imposing tax and penalty for the aforesaid amount. The petitioner has raised contention that once non-use of the vehicle is intimated for the period beyond three months, the owner of the vehicle is not required to satisfy the authority as to reasons for non-use of the vehicle exceeding three months and, therefore, respondents were not justified in accepting the non-use only for the three months and ordering for payment of tax and penalty for remaining period on the ground that the petitioner has not provided reasons for non-use of omnibus for the period exceeding three months.

3. The petition is opposed by affidavit in reply. It is mainly stated that during the financial year 1994-95, non-use of the passenger bus of the petitioner has been accepted by the respondent No. 3 for three months from 1.5.94 to 31.7.94 in normal circumstances but respondent No.2 has refused to accept non-use beyond the period of three months i.e. from 1.8.94 to 30.11.94 as no evidence was produced by the petitioner to show that the bus has not been used beyond the period of three months for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. Since the affidavit-in-reply is filed by the Deputy Director of Transport, Gujarat State, learned AGP Mr. P.P. Banaji was also asked to make the submissions.

5. Learned Advocate Ms. Nildhara Desai for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra. She submitted that Hon” ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others v. Kaushikbhai K. Patel and another, reported in 2000(3) GCD 1777 : (AIR 2000 SC 2175) (SC), held that when the non-use is accepted for the period exceeding three months, the authorities cannot give benefit only for the period of three months and impose tax and penalty for the period of non-use beyond three months. Ms. Desai submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that proper intimation in prescribed forms for non-use of the omnibus of the petitioner between 1.5.94 to 30.11.94 was given to the respondents. Even the reasons about need of repairs for the vehicle were declared by the petitioner. Ms. Desai submitted that though the non-use of the vehicle for the period as above is not doubted and in fact accepted by the respondent authorities, however, respondent No. 2 refused to sanction non-use for the period from 1.8.94 to 30.11.94 for the reasons not tenable in the eye of law. Ms. Desai submitted that as held by Hon” ble the Supreme Court, owner of the vehicle is