ORDER: This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the proceedings of the respondent made in A2/14252/95 dated 8.12.1995, to quash, and to direct the respondent to renew permit of the petitioner’s vehicle Mahindra Maxi Car bearing No.TN-51-Y-2979 so as to enable the petitioner to run the vehicle. 2. The petitioner purchased the vehicle (Maxi Cab) bearing Regn.No.TN-51-Y-2979 under hire purchase agreement on 6.6.1994 and the said vehicle was covered by contract carriage permit valid up to 7.6.1999. The said vehicle was seized by the Inspector of Police, Nagapattinam on 9.9.1994 and the same was held in judicial custody from 9.9.1994 to 20.12.1995 on the ground that the petitioner’s brother-in-law who was working as Assistant Educational Officer purchased the said vehicle in the name of the petitioner out of the amount misappropriated by him. The petitioner challenged the seizure and the Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam by order dated 23.3.1995 in Crime Review Petition No.44 of 1994 ordered the release of the said vehicle on certain conditions and the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner on 11.6.1996. Since the vehicle was seized and kept under judicial custody form 9.9.1994 to 20.12.1995, the petitioner did not pay the motor vehicles tax. Hence, the respondent issued a notice dated 7.11.1995 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the permit in respect of the vehicle should not be cancelled for non-payment of tax. The petitioner submitted the explanation on 20.11.1995 explaining that the petitioner did not put the vehicle on use from 9.9.1994 to 11.6.1996 as the vehicle was in judicial custody and therefore he did not pay the motor vehicles tax. Inspite of the said explanation, the respondent by the impugned proceedings dated 8.12.1995 cancelled the permit of the vehicle by virtue of the powers under Sec.86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as “the Act”). Subsequent to the above order, the petitioner by letter dated 14.6.1996 requested the respondent to set aside the order of cancellation and renew the permit. Inspite of the said representation, the respondent did not renew the permit. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of cancellation passed by the respondent dated 8.12.1995. 3. Subsequent to the above order, the petitioner by letter dated 14.6.1996 requested the respondent to set aside the order of cancellation and renew the permit. Inspite of the said representation, the respondent did not renew the permit. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of cancellation passed by the respondent dated 8.12.1995. 3. Mr.A.Thirumurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the vehicle admittedly did not ply on the route from 9.9.1994 to 11.6.1996 and therefore there was no question of payment of tax for that period. The respondent ought not to have passed the order of cancellation of permit on the ground of non-payment of tax which was explained by the petitioner to the respondent in his explanation dated 20.11.1995. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the rejection of the explanation offered by the petitioner and the consequential order cancelling the permit by the respondent is illegal and opposed to law. 4. Mr.E.Raja, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the petitioner immediately after the seizure of the vehicle ought to have reported the fact, the reason therefor and the expected period of withdrawal of the vehicle from service to the respondent. The petitioner failed to report the withdrawal of the vehicle from service authorized by permit and therefore by virtue of the powers conferred under Sec.86(1) of “the Act”, the respondent after giving notice to the petitioner has cancelled the permit. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that as against the said order of cancellation issued under Sec.86(1), the petitioner has the effective remedy of filing appeal under Sec.89(1)(b) of “the Act”. Without resorting to the alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Hence, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the writ petition is liable to be set aside. 5. The impugned order was passed by the respondent by virtue of the powers conferred under Sec.86(1) of “the Act”. As against the said order, the petitioner has got effective alternative remedy of appeal under Sec.89(1)(b) of “the Act” and the writ petition has been filed without resorting to the said provision by filing appeal. However, such appeal could be filed within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. As against the said order, the petitioner has got effective alternative remedy of appeal under Sec.89(1)(b) of “the Act” and the writ petition has been filed without resorting to the said provision by filing appeal. However, such appeal could be filed within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. Under the said clause, the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay in case any appeal is filed beyond a period of thirty days. The impugned order of cancellation was passed on 8.12.1995 and the writ petition was file don 31.3.1998. Even though the petitioner has got effective alternative remedy of appeal, in view of the pendency of the writ petition before this Court for over a period of 3 1/2 years, I do not propose to reject the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy to the petitioner. Hence, I proceed to decide the writ petition on merits. 6. Admittedly, the order of cancellation was passed under Sec.86(1) of “the Act”. Under the said section, the transport authority which granted the permit is empowered to cancel the permit or to suspend the same for any breach of conditions contained in the permit, namely the holder of the permit should pay the motor vehicles tax. Under Rule 254 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter called as “the Rules”), a corresponding obligation is cast upon the holder of the permit when withdrawing the vehicle from service, to forthwith report the fact, the reason therefor and the expected period of withdrawal of the vehicle from service authorized by permit to the Regional Transport Authority and also shall submit a report to that Authority immediately on restoration of the vehicle into service. In the absence of such report by the permit holder, the law presumes that the vehicle authorized by permit is actually put on use, more particularly for the purpose of violation of conditions of permit and to invoke the powers under Sec.86(1) of “the Act” for cancellation of permit. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was seized on 9.9.1994 and was in judicial custody till 20.12.1995 for a period of more than one year and three months and the petitioner did not inform the withdrawal of service of the said vehicle to the respondent as contemplated under Rule 254 of “the Rules” immediately after the seizure of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was seized on 9.9.1994 and was in judicial custody till 20.12.1995 for a period of more than one year and three months and the petitioner did not inform the withdrawal of service of the said vehicle to the respondent as contemplated under Rule 254 of “the Rules” immediately after the seizure of the vehicle. Only when a show cause notice was issued calling for explanation from the petitioner as to why the permit of the vehicle should not be cancelled under Sec.86(1) of “the Act”, after the acknowledging the same on 13.11.1995, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.11.1995 explaining that the vehicle was seized by police on 9.9.1994. The said explanation was not accepted by the Authorities since the Authorities are empowered to invoke the powers under Sec.86 with reference to breach of conditions of the permit namely non-payment of motor vehicles tax. In such event, the Authority has to consider only as to whether the petitioner was justified in not making the payment of tax for the period for which the vehicle was not put on use only with reference to Rule 254 of “the Rules”. As per the said Rules, unless the permit holder informs the Authorities of withdrawal of service of the vehicle, it is a breach of conditions of the permit. Admittedly the petitioner did not pay the tax for the period from 9.9.1994 till the impugned order was passed. The petitioner has not also expressed his willingness to pay tax when he submitted his explanation on 20.11.1995. The refusal of the respondent to accept the explanation offered by the petitioner cannot be considered to be unreasonable. The satisfaction arrived by the respondent to cancel the permit is supported by materials, more particularly with reference to the violation of conditions of permit and the non-compliance of Rule 254 of “the Rules” by the petitioner. In view of the above I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in challenging the impugned order of the respondent cancelling the permit of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner. In view of the same, the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is also dismissed.