By the Court.—We have heard Shri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.C. Tripathi, Standing Counsel appears for the respondents.

The petitioner is owner of vehicle No. U.P.75A-7437 (Bus). The permit of the vehicle is valid upto 17th January, 2030. The fitness certificate expired on 31.10.2010 and there are dues of tax under the U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997 of Rs. 95,400/- on which penalty amount has been imposed. The petitioner has also not paid the advance tax.

2. The petitioner applied for fitness certificate without paying the arrears of tax and advance tax, on which the Asstt. Regional Transport Officer (Admn.), Fatehpur has informed him by letter dated 18.5.2012 that he may deposit the arrears of tax, penalty and advance tax as well as the fitness fees of Rs. 920/- and obtained fitness certificate.

3. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for grant/ issue of certificate of fitness in respect of vehicle, under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with Rule 39 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 without payment of the full amount of tax. He has also prayed for quashing the letter dated 18.5.2012, by which he has been informed by the A.R.T.O. to obtain fitness certificate after depositing the tax, advance tax and fitness fees.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sushil Kumar v. The Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow, AIR 1983 All 178, in which it was held that endorsement of renewal on permit cannot be withheld on the ground of arrears of tax. The Court held that there is separate procedure for realisation of tax and which is not connected or correlated with the renewal of permit and allowed the prayer for endorsement on the permit leaving it open to the department to realise the tax.

The petitioner has also relied upon State of Orissa and others v. Bijaya C. Tripathy, AIR 2005 SC 1431, in which it was held that Section 66 prevents the use of vehicle as transport vehicle without a permit. It does not, however, prohibit driving of such vehicle on public road. Even in the absence of a valid permit the vehicle remains a transport vehicle, which is capable of being used on road so long as vehicle has valid certificate of fitness and valid registration certificate.

5. Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the registration under Section 39 and the award of fitness certificate under Section 56 are correlated to each other. The transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 39, unless it carries the certificate of fitness. He submits that tax under the U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997, in respect of stage carriage has to be paid under Section 4 (2A), which provides for imposition of tax in advance. The owner of the vehicle has an option to pay instead of monthly tax in advance a quarterly or yearly tax at such rate as may be notified by the State Government. Under Section 20 the Taxation Officer has powers to recover the tax, which includes arrears of tax or additional tax or penalty as land revenue. Under sub-section (2) the tax, additional tax and penalty is the first charge on the motor vehicle including its accessories in respect whereof it is due. Under Section 22 the transport vehicle can be detained by an officer authorised by the State Government, if it is used by a person without payment of tax, additional tax or penalty. The vehicle may be seized and detained for the purposes subject to such steps as may be considered necessary for safe custody of the motor vehicle for non-payment of the tax. The vehicle can be taken to nearest police station or any other place specified by him with report of seizure within 48 hours to the concerned Taxation Officer. The vehicle shall be released by Taxing Officer immediately on payment of tax, additional tax, penalty or other amount due.

6. Rule 67 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 made