M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of a motor Vehicle bearing registration no. MYD 6064. The vehicle is normally kept in Karwar Dist. The petitioner sent certain documents relating to the vehicle to the Regional transport Officer, Bijapur, in April 1977 for issue of a pucca permit granted to him. These documents were sent in response to the communication received ' from the said Regional transport Officer, Bijapur. In spite of his best efforts the petitioner could not get the return of the documents from the Regional Transport Officer, bijapur. ( 2 ) IN the meanwhile on 1-8-1977 the petitioner made an application to the Regional Transport Officer, karwar, the 2nd respondent here in for accepting non-user oi Ms vehicle with effect from 1-8-77 stating that the relevant documents required to surrendered with such an application would be so surrendered after the same was received from the Regional transport Officer, Bijapur. That application came to be rejected on the ground that it was not accompanied by the documents mentioned in the government Notification pertaining to grant of exemption from payment of tax. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Belgaum, together with an application for staying the demand notice issued by the 2 nd respondent who had in the meanwhile demanded the tax from 31-10-77 to 31-10-78. In spite of several representatidns made, the 1st respondent appellate authority neither passed any order on the application made for interim relief for staying the demand made by the 2nd respondent nor disposed of the appeal itself. The petitioner again received an endorsement on 5-11-79 demanding the payment of tax in the sum of Rs. 14,155 together with surcharge of Rs. 1832. The demand notice is produced at Ex-E to the petition. It is in these circumstances the petitioner has approached this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-appellate authority either to consider his application for interim relief of staying the demand notice of the 2nd respondent-Regional Transport Officer for arrears of tax in respect of his vehicle or for a mandamus disecting the 1st respondent to dispose of the main appeal itself. The petitioner has also asserted in the petition that the fitness certificate of the vehicle expired in October, 1977 itself. The petitioner has also asserted in the petition that the fitness certificate of the vehicle expired in October, 1977 itself. This writ petition was filed in July, 1979. ( 3 ) NO formal statement of objections is filed by the respondents. But the learned Government Pleader be appearing for the respondents has sttted on the basis of the records that the appeal filed by the petition er before the 1st respondent appellate authority is yet pending and that no orders have been passed even now on the application made by the petitioner for staying the demand notice issued by the 2nd respondent. I a a therefore constrained to say that the conduct of the appellate authority is far from satisfactory. There was no inhibition, on account the pendency of this writ petition, for thin to dispose of the appeal or the application whichever was the more expedient. ( 4 ) THE right of appeal is a statutory right conferred on all persons aggrieve 1 by the orders of the Tax Officer under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). That being a substantive right, the appellate authority is bound to consider the appeal and dispose of the same within a reasonable time on merits in accordance with law. Though there is no specific provision made in the Act for making inter elocutory applications for staying the demand by the appellate authority, it must be assumed that the appellate authority in the exercise of its appellate power has inherent in it, the power to stay the demand on an application made by the appellant before it. If such an application is made, it should either be rejected or allowed on such terms, as the appellate authority may deem fit to impose on the appellant. ( 5 ) NEITHER having been done I must hold that the appellate authority has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vesied in it without sufficient cause and the petitioner is therefore entitled to a writ of mandamus. ( 6 ) IT is not enohgh if the matter is left at this. As far back as in the year 1978 itself, this Court in the case of b. V. Subramanya Setty v Senior rto Mysore W. P. 1149j74 and 148 75 dt. ( 6 ) IT is not enohgh if the matter is left at this. As far back as in the year 1978 itself, this Court in the case of b. V. Subramanya Setty v Senior rto Mysore W. P. 1149j74 and 148 75 dt. 30-6-78 has held that there is no liability to pay tax under the act, if the fitness certificate of the vehicle had expired having regard to the language of the proviso to sec. 3 of the Act. The decision was essentially rendered on the basis of the fiction created by Sec. 38 of the indian Motor Vehicles Act that expiry of the fitness certificate would automatically suspend the registration certificate of the vehicle. If the vehicle was not registered under law, then it was not bound to pay the tax under the registered under law, then it was not bound to pay the tax under the act until and unless the Tax Officer was satisfied on proof that the vehicle in question had indeed been used on the roads in the State of Karnataka in spite of the fitness certificate having expired. ( 7 ) IN this circumstance the petitioner is entitled to a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to dispose of his appeal within one month from the date of receipt of this order after giving notice of the date of hearing to the petitioner. While disposing of the appeal the appellate authority shall bear in mind the observation made by me above regarding the decision of this Court in the aforementioned case as to the liability for payment of tax under the Act. ( 8 ) IN the result, rule is made absolute. Accordingly, a direction will issue as above and the demand notice at Exhibit-E and the earlier demand notice is stayed by this Court till the disposal of the appeal by the 1st pondent. ( 9 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .