Judgment :- 1. Petitioner is the. owner of a lorry bearing registration No. KLQ 6601. The certificate of fitness of the vehicle enured till 31-5-1985. The vehicle was in need of repair and was garaged in one Ayyappa Motor Workshop for carrying out the repairs since 20-3-1985. Petitioner intimated the Regional Transport Officer, (the first respondent) on 6-4-1985 about the non-user of the vehicle for the period from 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1986 in form G appended to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules (Taxation Rules for short) for the purpose of getting exemption from payment of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (the Taxation Act). The first respondent accepted the G form and granted exemption from payment of tax upto 31-3-1986. 2. The certificate of fitness for the vehicle was valid only till 31-5-1985. In view of the garaging of the vehicle, the petitioner could not produce it for inspection by the first respondent before that date. R.134(1) (bb) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (the Rules) provides that if a vehicle is produced for renewal of certificate of fitness after its expiry, a penalty at the rate of Rs. 50/- in the case of a contract carriage and Rs. 100/- in the case of any other transport vehicle shall be charged for every calendar month or part thereof. But, if the registered owner or person having possession or control of such vehicle, gives previous intimation in writing, to the Regional Transport Officer concerned, that such vehicle will not be used for such period, in that event the owner or the other person shall not be deemed to have used or kept for use such vehicle for such period and no penalty shall be payable in respect of such vehicle for such period. In other words, though the petitioner did not produce the vehicle for renewal of the certificate of fitness before its expiry on 31-5-1985, he was not bound to pay any penalty under R.134 (1) (bb), if he had given previous intimation in writing about the non-user. 3. After the repairs were carried out, the petitioner applied to the first respondent on 15-3-1986, to grant certificate of fitness without payment of penalty. The first respondent however, rejected the application and called upon the petitioner to remit fine at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month from June 1985, by his proceedings Ext. P2 dated 31-3-1986. 3. After the repairs were carried out, the petitioner applied to the first respondent on 15-3-1986, to grant certificate of fitness without payment of penalty. The first respondent however, rejected the application and called upon the petitioner to remit fine at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month from June 1985, by his proceedings Ext. P2 dated 31-3-1986. The petitioner filed an appeal therefrom before the Deputy Transport Commissioner. The contention raised by the petitioner was that he had given previous intimation about the non-user of the vehicle to the first respondent himself in form G appended to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, which did service for R.134 (1) (bb) as well and therefore, he was not liable to be visited with the penalty as claimed in Ext. P2. This did not find acceptance with the Deputy Transport Commissioner, who rejected the appeal by his proceedings Ext. P4. But it has to be stated that the Deputy Transport Commissioner did not deal with the matter in the way in which the petitioner had put it forward before him. He simply stated that R.134 requires previous intimation, and therefore, the appeal deserved no consideration. 4. Petitioner challenges these orders Exts. P2 and P4 and reiterates the contention raised by him in his appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner. 5. R.134 (1) (bb) specifies that no penalty shall be payable if previous intimation in writing is given to the Regional Transport Officer that the vehicle will not be used for the period in question. There is no specific form or mode prescribed by this rule for giving the intimation. The Taxation Act enables the owner of a vehicle to get exemption from payment of the tax under the Act for periods during which the vehicle is not to be used if he gives previous intimation in writing about the non-user to the Regional Transport Officer. The Taxation Rules prescribe that such previous intimation shall be given in form G. Both S.5 of the Taxation Act and R.134(1) (bb) of the Rules require previous intimation in writing of the very same fact, that the vehicle shall not be used for the period mentioned. The intimation is to be given to the same authority namely the Regional Transport Officer. The intimation is to be given to the same authority namely the Regional Transport Officer. There is no dispute that such an intimation had been given by the petitioner in form G appended to the Taxation Rules and that he had been granted the exemption. There was no separate intimation mentioning it as pertaining to Rule(1) (bb) of the Rules. However, the fact remains that the Regional Transport Officer namely the first respondent did have previous intimation in writing about the non-user from the petitioner. In the absence of any specification of the manner or the form in which such an intimation is to be given, I am of the view that the previous intimation given in form G of the Taxation Rules will do service for R.134 (1) (bb) as well. The intent of the rule is that the vehicle ought not to be used during the period in question, and the Regional Transport Officer should have previous intimation about that fact perhaps to enable verification. The form in which such intimation is given is immaterial so far as the Rules are concerned. The requirement is only that there must be previous intimation. The mere fact that it was in form G of the Taxation Rules and that it was intended to earn the exemption from payment of the tax under the Taxation Act, cannot deprive the petitioner of the benefit of the exemption from penalty under R.134(1) (bb). So long as the authority has previous intimation, that is sufficient to attract the exemption from penalty under the rule. The demand made in Ext. P2 for penalty was not therefore justified. 6. The petitioner has already paid the amount of penalty. He is therefore, entitled to get refund of the same. 7. The original petition is therefore, allowed. Exts. P2 and P4 are quashed. The first respondent is directed to refund the amount of penalty paid by the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P2 expeditiously. The original petition is allowed as above. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.