Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was found guilty of offences under S.4 (1) (d) of the T-C Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, and sentenced under S.8 of that Act in C. C. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 of 1954 and C.C. No. 170 of 1955 by the 1st respondent, the Sub-Magistrate, of Koothattukulam. Exts. A to F of the 14th September 1956 are the judgments delivered in those cases. 2. S.4(1) (d) provides: "No motor vehicle shall be used on any public road in the State at any time after the issue of a notification under sub-section (1) of S.3, unless a license permitting such use during such time has been obtained under clause (a) or clause (c) and S.8: If the tax due in respect of any vehicle has not been paid, the registered owner or the person having possession or control thereof shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees; and the amount of the tax due by him in respect of such vehicle for the quarter or quarters or half-year or year concerned shall also be recovered as if it were a fine." What the Sub-Magistrate did was to fine the petitioner Rs. 5/ in each of the cases mentioned above and also direct the recovery of the amount of the tax due from the petitioner as if it were a fine. 3. Art.301 of the Constitution provides that: " Subject to the other provisions of this Part, trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free" and Art.304 (b): "Notwithstanding anything in Art.301 or Art.303, the Legislature of a State may by law (b) impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that-State as may be required in the public interest: Provided that no Bill or amendment for the purposes of clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in the Legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President". 4. The first contention of the petitioner is that the T-C. Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, imposes restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse within the State and that the Act is bad for the lack of the previous sanction of the President indicated in the proviso extracted above. It is impossible to consider the enactment as one interfering with the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. It is impossible to consider the enactment as one interfering with the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. It is no more than a fiscal measure coming under Entry 57 of List II (State List) of the Seventh schedule to the Constitution: "Taxes on vehicles, whether mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads, including tramcars subject to the provisions of entry 35 of List III". Such a piece of legislation does not require any Presidential sanction and is not bad for the lack of it. 5. The second contention is that the convictions entered and the sentences given in the judgments Exts. A to F violate the provisions of a Central enactment, that is, of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. I am unable to see any such violation. The petitioner is the registered owner of the motor vehicles concerned and under S.8 of the T-C. Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, the registered owner ran certainly be made liable for the failure to pay the taxes. 6. The definition of the expression "registered owner" as given in S.2 (8) of the Act is: "'Registered owner' means in relation to a motor vehicle the person in whose name a motor vehicle is registered or deemed to be registered under the law relating to motor vehicles for the time being in force, and in relation to a Vehicle other than a motor vehicle the person whose name is entered in a register to be maintained by the licensing officer under this Act" 7. No other contention was urged before me or arises for consideration and in the light of what is stated above this petition has to be dismissed Order accordingly. No costs.