Renewal of permit outside the scope of Inter-State agreement will not make the order granting renewal under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as an order under the provisions of the Pondicherry Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to call for the records in F. No. TD/TP. 1/11/92 dated 4-3-1992 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and for any other appropriate order or direction.

2. The petitioner's grievance is that in spite of the fact that his permit on the route Cuddalore to Tindivanam was directed to be renewed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, the 1st respondent, in spite of his repeated requests, did not make the necesssary endorsement of the said renewal in his stage carriage permit effecting the renewal from 4-1-1988 to 4-1-1993. According to the writ petitioner, his permit alone for the Inter-State route Cuddalore to Tindivanam via Pondicherry is covered by the Inter-State agreement for the portions lying within the limits of Union Territory of Pondicherry. But, suddenly, by proceedings dated 4-3-1992, the 1st respondent, purporting to implement the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, in M.V. Appeal No. 1 of 1992, renewing his stage carriage permit on the route Cuddalore to Tindivanam via Pondicherry, stated that the renewal is given subject to payment of tax to the Tamil Nadu Government, which, according to the petitioner, is totally unwarranted and illegal.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is, that he was operating a stage carriage permit on the route Cuddalore to Tindivanam via Pondicherry, granted in reciprocal agreement between the Governments of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry, by which one stage carriage permit with single point tax payable in Pondicherry, was granted on the route Cuddalore to Tindivanam via Pondicherry, by the Pondicherry Authority. He has been operating the same by paying tax in Pondicherry from 1974, and the said permit has been renewed by the Proceedings of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, in M.V. Appeal No. 1 of 1992. The renewed permit is continuation of the original permit and as such, after renewal, the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit of single point tax payable in Pondicherry, which he has paid, and the same cannot be taken away suddenly by the 1st respondent.

4. Mr. K. Alagiriswami, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent, the benefits already enjoyed by the petitioner from 1974 by paying single point tax to Pondicherry is taken away and the petitioner has been called upon to pay tax in Tamil Nadu also without any prior notice or opportunity to the petitioner and consequently, he submits, that the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay tax in Tamil Nadu also is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice and illegal. He further submits, that so far as the tax payable to Tamil Nadu is concerned, it is for the Tamil Nadu Government Transport Authority and not for the Pondicherry Transport Authority to direct. In this view of the matter also, the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay tax in Tamil Nadu is illegal and totally without jurisdiction. The learned senior counsel then submits that in view of the illegal proceedings of the 1st respondent, the petitioner will be obliged to pay a heavy amount by way of tax in Tamil Nadu. This is the only stage carriage the petitioner is having and he will not be able to run the said stage carriage by paying tax in Tamil Nadu in pursuance of the illegal proceedings of the 1st respondent. Therefore, he prays that the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent should be quashed.

5. The petitioner has impleaded originally the State Transport Authorities, Pondicherry and Madras only as respondents 1 and 2. One N. Krishnaswami Chetty, proprietor of Vijayalakshmi Transport Service, Pondicherry, has filed W.M.P. No. 5584 of 1992 to implead himself as a party respondent in the writ petition. The said petition was ordered