RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a holder of an All india Tourist permit-T. V P. 23 (1 2) 80. The said permit covers more than one vehicle as provided under Section 59a of the Motor Vehicles Act (the 'act' for short ). CAW 1333 and-CAW 2071 are the two vehicles covered by the said permit. The tourist omni-bus-CAW 1333 was replaced by another omni bus -CAW 2071 and the replacement was endorsed by the Secretary, Karnataka State Transport Authority, as per the endorsement dated-7-4-1988 (Annexure-'d' ). ( 2 ) TAX under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act had been pa'd on 4-4-1988 in respect of CAW 2071 upto 30th June 1988 as per the interim-orders made by the Supreme Court in W P. Nos 6316 to 6325/87 at the rate of Rs. 1. 000/- per seat per quarter. But, another sum of Rs. 34,000/- was collected from the petitioner in respect of the same replaced vehicle on 7-4 88 for the same quarter. This collection appears to have been made on the strength of a Circular issued by the Commissioner for Transport. The petitioner asked for adjustment of the amount of Rs. 34,000/- paid on 7-4-1988 for the tax due by the petitioner for the quarter ending 30-9-88 in respect of the same vehicle since it was an additional amount of tax recovered by the department The R. T. O. has declined to permit any such adjustment as per the endorsement dated 2-7-88. (Anx- F'}. As already stated, he is guided by the circular issued by the Commissioner which finds a mention in the endorsement. The reason for refusing to adjust the tax in respect of the replaced vehicle is stated in the Circular thus :- "regarding extending the benefit of the Interim Orders to non-petitioners :- the interim order enjoins that these orders shall be applied to every case which are before the Hon'ble Supreme court of India. it may be noted that only the petitioners and their particular vahicles which are entitled to the benefit of the interim orders and not others. (List of appellants/writ Petitioners and the Registration Marks of these vehicles have already been furnished to all of you ). ( 3 ) THE Regional Transport Officers/asst. it may be noted that only the petitioners and their particular vahicles which are entitled to the benefit of the interim orders and not others. (List of appellants/writ Petitioners and the Registration Marks of these vehicles have already been furnished to all of you ). ( 3 ) THE Regional Transport Officers/asst. Regional Transport Officers are requested once again to note that those who do not pay the 50% of the impugned taxes as enumerated above and furnish the buses as Security for the remaining 50% as contemplated in the orders of the Hon'ble supreme Court of India on or before 31-12-1987 will be liable for paymant of full tax at Rs. 2000/- per seat per quarter and unless the taxes are paid in full such vehicles shall not be allowed to ply. ( 4 ) THE Regional Transport Officers/the asst Regional Transport Officers who have been receiving the tax in respect of vehicles which have been involved in the litigation before the Hon'ble Supreme court alone should receive the security from the petitioners". The endorsement, which is issued applying the Circular of the Commissioner to the petitioner's replaced vehicle, is challenged in this writ petition. ( 5 ) THE Circular is meant to apply to the petitioners before the Supreme Court. Instructions, are therefore, issued by the commissioner not to extend the benefit of the interim-order to the non-petitioners'. Who is a non-petitioner in the context of the interim-order, has to be understood as persons who are not litigants before the Supreme Court in the batch of appeals filed by the State. The understanding of the Circular by the R. T. O. does not accord with the scheme of the Act, namely-Sections 59 and 59a, and also the interim-order of the Supreme Court. The R. T. O. seems to think, that the benefit of the interimorder should be extended only to the particular vehicles which were in operation and covered by the permit at the time the supreme Court made the interim order. Accordingly, the R. T 0. has refused to extend the benefit of the interim order to the replaced vehicle, namely-CAW 2017. Accordingly, the R. T 0. has refused to extend the benefit of the interim order to the replaced vehicle, namely-CAW 2017. That this is the tenor of the Circular is also made clear in the directions issued by the Commissioner to receive the tax only in respect of the vehicles which have been involved in the litigation before the supreme Court and also accept the security of only of such vehicle for the balance of the tax. ( 6 ) IT becomes necessary, therefore, to examine the Circular meticulously. The circular makes reference to : (i) petitioners before the Supreme court ; and (ii) their particular vehicles which are entitled to the benefit of the interim order. it also excludes specifically from the purview of the interim-order, persons other than the petitioners and the vehicles not covered by any permit. But the circular is not understood in this manner by the R T. O. , and the benefit of the interim-order is not extended to the replaced vehicles. Whether the interim order made in respect of the All India Tourist permit holders could be applied even to the replaced vehicles came up for consideration in w. P. No. 8082/88 disposed of on 30-5-88. I have held, in the said order, that an All India permit holder is entitled to replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature as per the provisions of Section 59. Under Section 59a, a permit can be covered by more than one vehicle and each such vehicle would be issued with part-B permit. In the order passed in w. P. No. 8082/88, I have held that the interim order passed by the Supreme court in the batch of cases, should be made applicable to the replaced vehicles also whenever it becomes necessary to replace by virtue of the provisions of Section 59 read with Section 59a. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the scheme of the Act and the provisions of Section 59 and 59a permits the replacement of a vehicle by any other vehicle which is authorised to be plied under the permit. It is not in dispute that both the vehicles in question are tourist omni buses caw 1333 and CAW 2071 and are covered by the All India permit No. TVP 23 (1-2)80. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that another sum of Rs. It is not in dispute that both the vehicles in question are tourist omni buses caw 1333 and CAW 2071 and are covered by the All India permit No. TVP 23 (1-2)80. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that another sum of Rs. 34,000/-had to be paid on 7-4-88 in respect of the same vehicle since the authorities insisted on such payment relying on the Circular of the Commissioner. The request made by the Petitioner is to adjust the said amount for the quarter ending 30-9-88 is refused by the r. T. O. This endorsement is challenged in this Writ Petition. ( 8 ) IT is argued on behalf of the respondent by the learned Government Pleader that the endorsement is based on the circular issued by the Commissioner and that therefore the demand made to pay the full tax of Rs. 68,000/- per quarter hereafter is in accordance with the said circular. The Circular overlooks both the provisions of Sections 59 and 59a of the act and the real purpose and effect of the interim-order made by the Supreme Court in the batch of appeals. It is also not in dispute that the present petitioner -Indra prakash Chabra is one of the litigants before the Supreme Court. The permit issued to him is covered by both the vehicles-CAW 1333 and CAW 2071. The Commissioner appears to be under misconception in issuing the circular that only the petitioners before the Supreme Court and their particular vehicles should have the benefit of the interim orders and should not be made applicable to 'other vehicles' and' nonpetitioners'. The term, 'non-petitioners' should be understood in a different sense altogether and any vehicle covered by the all India Tourist Permit held by a tourist operator who is a litigant before the supreme Court, is also governed by the interim order Both for purposes of recovery of the tax at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per seat and for offering the vehicle as security as per the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the interimorder applies to the replaced vehicles also. ( 9 ) THE 'other-vehicle' in this context, therefore, has to be understood as the replaced vehicle replaced with the permission of the Secretary, S T. A. , in accordance with section 59 (2 ). The petitioner before the Supreme court is one of the permit holders. ( 9 ) THE 'other-vehicle' in this context, therefore, has to be understood as the replaced vehicle replaced with the permission of the Secretary, S T. A. , in accordance with section 59 (2 ). The petitioner before the Supreme court is one of the permit holders. The litigant is the permit holder and not any particular vehicle and the litigation is in respect of the enhanced tax payable by the permit holder on the vehicle/vehicles covered by the All India Tourist permit. Both the tourist omnibuses-CAW 1333 and CAW 2071 are having Part-B permits. Therefore, any order made in respect of the petitioner, who is the litigant before the Supreme Court should be read and extended even in respect of any other vehicle whose replacement is endorsed by the competent-authority. To refuse to apply and extend the interim order to the replaced vehicle as is done by the R. T. O. would amount to non- compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court, besides, resulting in a misconstrruction of the provisions of Sections 59 and 59a of the Motor Vehicles act. ( 10 ) THE Commissioner for Transport, may therefore, issue modified instructions to all the R T. Os', in the light of this order, and the order made in W. P. No. 8082/ 1988. The petitioner is entitled, in law, to replace a vehicle by any other vehicle and it is un-understandable how the petitioner can be called upon to pay the full tax of Rs. 68,000/- per quarter in respect of the replaced vehicle. The petitioner is not only entitled for the adjustment of Rs. 34,000/- paid on 7-4-88 for the quarter ending 30-9-88 and there cannot be demand against him to pay Rs. 68,000/- for the same quarter. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Endorsement Dated 2-7-88 (Anx-'f ). is quashed and the respondent is directed to adjust the sum of Rs. 34,000/- paid on 7-4-88 in respect of caw 2071 for the quarter ending 30-9- 88 and the respondent is also restrained from demanding and collecting the full tax of Rs. 68. 000/- for the same quarter. Office is directed to furnish a copy of this Order to the petitioner expeditiously. Writ Petition Allowed. --- *** --- .