As common questions of facts and law are involved in both the Writ Petitions, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

2. Brief facts leading to W.P. No. 7505 of 2005 are as follows:

The petitioner is a contract carnage omni bus operator, operating his vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-07-R-1999 with valid permit issued by the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry. The petitioner undertook a tour from Pondicherry to visit places in Chennai, Salem, Yercaud, Dharmapurai, Guruvayur etc., and obtained permit in this regard from the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry for a period of one week from 14.9.2004 to 20.9.2004. On 13.9.2004, when the above said vehicle was proceeding to Yercaud Hills, the vehicle was checked by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Gr. II, attached to the Office of the respondent and found following irregularities:

“ 1. The vehicle found to be Pondicherry based vehicle issued by T.P. Under Section 88(8)vide No. 16/PY/92, dated 16.2.2004, valid from 14.9.2004 to 20.9.2004. On enquiry from the passengers one Mr.O.Rajendran, statement enclosed, found to be Malaisian delegates group of 31 persons boarded in the vehicle in Vandhavasi, T.V. District on 13.9.2004.

2. Picking up the passengers within the State of Tamilnadu is violating the permit condition. Hence tax to be collected for the QE, 30.9.2004. Since the vehicle is only material evidence due to refusal of the Police Officials the vehicle could not be detained. Inspite, the original RC book, seized and enclosed, for necessary action. The passengers found to be foreign delegates. The vehicle is allowed to proceed.”

For the irregularities stated above, the checking officer impounded the documents, against which the petitioner filed W.P. No. 28516 of 2004 seeking to release the seized documents of the vehicle and this Court passed orders directing the respondent to release the documents and take action under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after giving necessary opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner has further submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court, instead of taking action against the permit, the respondent has issued the impugned show case notice, dated 16.2.2005 to the petitioner as to why tax should not be collected for the entire quarter ending with 30.9.2004. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent demanding tax, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.

3. Facts involved in W.P. No. 7506 of 2005 are almost similar to that of W.P. No. 7505 of 2005, except, the variation in the Registration Number of the vehicle bearing No. TN-01-T-1999, period of permit from 9.9.2004 to 15.9.2004. The irregularities noticed by the Checking Inspector are as follows:

“At the time of check this vehicle is having valid permit under Section 88(8) issued by the Government of Pondicherry. As per the permit condition, it should not pick up party in out State. But on enquiry, it reveals that the travelled passengers in the vehicle is picked up at Vandavasi on 13.9.2004, 65 passengers in two vehicles is TN-07-R-1999 and this vehicle to go round the Tamilnadu.”

4. Ms. Radha Gopalan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the show cause notices, dated 25.9.1999 were given in respect of the above vehicles, by letters dated 7.10.2004 and 14.10.2004, the petitioners have denied the charges. But, subsequent to the order in W.P. No. 28516 and 28517 of 2004 referred to in the impugned order, the petitioners were not given any opportunity to explain in person. She further submitted that insofar as pecuniary liability is concerned, personal hearing is a mandatory requirement and in the absence of the same, the impugned order of demand is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the charge issued was only for misusing the permit conditions and therefore, action can be taken only against the permits under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles