Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—As the point involved in these three writ petitions are one and same, they are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment and order. The writ petition No. 1177 of 2006 is being treated as leading case and reference of facts of the above writ petition are sufficient to decide all the three cases.

2. This writ petition has been filed, interalia, for the following reliefs :

“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.5.2006.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery citation dated 22.12.2005.

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the ex-parte order dated 20.5.2005.

(iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the circular dated 19.7.2000 and direction dated 12.9.2003.

(v) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to not charge any amount of penalty on the basis of direction dated 12.9.2003 (Annexure-3).”

3. In writ petitions No. 1760 of 2006 and 1812 of 2006 a prayer for replacing the vehicle covered by permit by Higher Model Vehicle is also there.

4. Background facts as enumerated in the present writ petition No. 1177 of 2006 are as follows;

5. The petitioner was the owner of stage carriage No. UP 61/3637. The said vehicle was covered by regular stage carriage permit 1720/VNS/1998, which was valid from 20.7.1998 to 19.7.2003. The petitioner was depositing the road tax and additional tax in accordance with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (in short “the Taxation Act”) and Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 (in short “the Taxation Rules”).

6. Since the model of the vehicle was of the year 1991, engine and chasis required major repairing. The financial position of the petitioner was very bad. He was not in a position to get the engine and chasis repaired, therefore, on 30.7.01 the petitioner surrendered the certificate of registration and permit (in short “the documents”) of the vehicle in the office of respondent No. 3, Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) Ghazipur which was accepted by the concerned authority by order dated 31.7.01 and during the said period, the vehicle remained parked in the Garage of ‘Chhotey Body Mistri’. After repairing of the chasis and engine of the vehicle No. UP 61/3637 on 4.8.05, the petitioner moved an application in the office of respondent No. 2, Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Ghazipur and requested to release the documents of the vehicle in question.

7. The Respondent No. 3 called for the report from the enforcement office by order dated 4.8.05 and on the same day the report about ‘check’ and ‘Challani’ was submitted and nothing adverse was found against the petitioner. On 5.8.05 petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1314/- and Rs. 6643/- as the road tax and Additional Tax respectively for getting the documents of the vehicle released. On the same day i.e. 5.8.05, the petitioner deposited the said total sum of Rs. 7957/-, and the documents of the vehicle were released. Since the regular stage carriage permit No. 1720/98 for plying of the vehicle on the prescribed route stood already expired on 19.7.03, the petitioner moved an application for renewal of the permit No. 1720/98 and in the meantime, the petitioner obtained a temporary permit for the period from 9.9.05 to 3.10.05 for the prescribed route.

8. On 31.12.05 respondent No. 5 issued a recovery certificate to recover a sum of Rs. 1, 05,000/- towards penalty/compounding fee against the petitioner for the period from 1.12.01 to 31.7.05. The petitioner made inquiry from the office of respondent No. 3 & 4 with regard to the impugned recovery certificate and he was apprised that in pursuance of direction dated 12.9.03 issued by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi, the