JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J. - I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. 2. In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.3.1984. Annexure P11, passed by respondent No. 4, the District Transport Officer, Patiala, creating a demand of road tax amounting to Rs. 52,000/- in respect of Bus No. PNC-3503 for the period from 3rd quarter 1981-82 to Second quarter 1983-84. The petitioner also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 4 to issue clearance certificate with a further prayer to direct respondent No. 2 to issue permits held by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner, Roshan Lal (lunatic) claims that he had been granted the following route permits; 1. Patiala to Gharam with permit No. 311 to 315. 2. Patiala to Ghanaur with permit No. 211 to 215. 3. Patiala to Rajpura via village Khurara Kurari. 4. Patiala to Sirhind upto Bassi with permit Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. 5. Nabha to Samana (Kasha) with permit No. 642/53. 4. In the year 1957, the petitioner became a lunatic. He remained admitted at the Mental Hospital, Amritsar, as an indoor patient for a long time. Ultimately, he was declared incurable. Subsequently, by order dated 25.09.1980. Annexure P4, Smt. Daya Wanti widow of Ram Saroop, mother of the petitioner, was appointed guardian of his person and property. The petitioner entered into a partnership on 27.8.1979 to form a Transport Company for passenger Transport in the name of M/s Roshan Lal son of Ram Saroop of Ramgarh, Distt. Patiala, Head Office Samana, Distt. Patiala. Subsequently, one Gora Lal son of Kaka Mal, respondent No. 6, who knew about the lunacy of the petitioner got a permit issued from the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, in the name of the petitioner, bearing permit No. 642/52, for Nabha to Samaria via Channo route, against the original permit No. 642/53 (Kacha), held by the petitioner. The permit issued in respect of Bus No. PNT-4237, was never owned by the petitioner. Gora Lal, taking advantage of the lunacy of the petitioner, started operating the bus against the permit issued in the name of the petitioner. The permit issued in respect of Bus No. PNT-4237, was never owned by the petitioner. Gora Lal, taking advantage of the lunacy of the petitioner, started operating the bus against the permit issued in the name of the petitioner. The fraud was continued to be perpetuated by respondent No. 6. Other buses were also purchased in the name of the petitioner. It is, however, the case of the petitioner, as pleaded in the writ petition, that the petitioner owned only one bus bearing No. PUV-3672. In respect of this bus, the petitioner was granted a temporary permit No. 642/53 which was to expire on 1.12.1981. This bus was impounded on 2.12.1981 for non payment of road tax. The bus was released on 22.3.1982. Thereafter, the bus remained off the route and no further permit was granted. In spite of the aforesaid, the respondents have issued order dated 12.3.1984, Annexure P 11. Order dated 12.3.1984 was passed on the application of the petitioner seeking exemption from the payment of tax. 5. Mr. Sharma submits that the application of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on the ground that there has been a non-compliance of Rule 10 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1925 (herein after referred to as "the Rules"), as it was obligatory on the part of the vehicle owner to inform the authority regarding his intention of not using the vehicle and deposit the Registration Certificate of the vehicle before the commencement of the concerned quarter for seeking exemption in the payment of road tax. The plea of the petitioner that the bus was not having any valid route permit as a result of which it could not be operated on the route, was rejected as not being relevant. It has been held that since the petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules, he is liable to pay road tax in respect of Bus No. PNC-3503 amounting to Rs. 52,000/- for the period 3rd quarter 1981-82 to second quarter 1983-84. It has been held that since the petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules, he is liable to pay road tax in respect of Bus No. PNC-3503 amounting to Rs. 52,000/- for the period 3rd quarter 1981-82 to second quarter 1983-84. As regards the plea of the petitioner that he could not deposit the Registration Certificate of the bus because it was impounded by the Taxation Authorities and that thereafter, the bus was in the workshop for heavy repairs, it has been observed that although the Registration Certificate had been impounded by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Sangrur, on 2.12.1981, yet it was released on 22.3.1982. Therefore, the Registration Certificate could have been deposited after the release by the Excise and Taxation Authorities. Even the affidavit furnished by the petitioner from the Gram Panchayats of the villages falling on the route for establishing the fact that the vehicle in question was not operated during the relevant period has been rejected on the ground that the Gram Panchayats have only made request for providing bus service on the route. Mr. Sharma submits that the respondents were duty bound to consider each and every submission which had been made by the petitioner on merits. The plea could not have been rejected only on the ground that there has been a non-compliance of Rule 10 of the Rules. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kishan workers Transport Co-operative Society Ltd v. State of Punjab and others, Civil Appeal No. 2543 of 1980 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8737 of 1980, decided on 22.10.1980. 6. Mr. Sran on the other hand, appearing for the respondents, however, raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner is liable to pay arrears of road tax in respect of Bus No. PNC-3503 in view of the judgment of this Court rendered in previous writ petition filed by the petitioner being Civil Writ Petition No. 4783 of 1982. Learned counsel also submits that the provisions of Rule 10 are mandatory in nature and the petitioner was required to comply with the same. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned counsel also submits that the provisions of Rule 10 are mandatory in nature and the petitioner was required to comply with the same. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is a lunatic. His disease has been declared to be incurable. He was operating the transport company through his guardian. The petitioner has elaborately set out the fraud which has been committed by various parties. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the District Transport Officer was duty bound to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances which have been pleaded by the petitioner before imposing a liability of road tax on the petitioner; The previous judgment referred to by Mr. Sran related to Bus No. PUV-3672 and it related to the period from April 02,1974 to June 30, 1982. With regard to Bus No. PNC3503, it has been observed in the judgment that the bus has been impounded for recovery of arrears due. It is also directed that on payment of arrears of road tax in respect of bus No. PNC-3503 as determined afresh, it will be released. Thereafter, this Court had directed that the matter relating to arrears of road tax in relation to Bus No. PUV-3672 and Bus No. PNC-3503, shall be decided afresh. The petitioner was directed to appear before the District Transport Officer, Patiala, on 1.2.1984. This order was passed by the High Court on 18.1.1984. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the District Transport Officer, Patiala. 9. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it has been passed on the ground that there has been a non-compliance of Rule 10 of the Rules. I am of the considered opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in M/s Kishan Workers Transports case (supra). In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held as follows; "The mode of proof of non-user can be either advance intimation that the vehicle is not going to be used or subsequent statement that the vehicle has not been used during the preceding quarter. The rule (Rule 10) designated one method of proof, viz., prior intimation that the motor vehicle is not going to be used. The rule (Rule 10) designated one method of proof, viz., prior intimation that the motor vehicle is not going to be used. Indeed this should be common method for any owner of the vehicle who expects exemption from liability. We do not think that the amplitude of the Section can be read as indicative of the common sanctioned mode of proof of non-suer specially because the concerned Motor Vehicles Authority will then have an opportunity to check and be on the watch out to see whether the vehicle is being used on the road. In case there is a break down or as in this case the vehicle has been seized and taken away by the financier who has such power under the hire purchase agreement, there is no reason why a registered owner of the vehicle should be penalised merely because he has not resorted to approved method specified in Rule 10. It is a matter of believing his version by the taxing authority. It may well be in some cases that the owner may by irrefutable evidence establish that he did not indeed could not use the vehicle because it was not in his custody or command". 10. In view of the aforesaid observations, it has to be held that the petitioner has not been given due opportunity as required under the law. The impugned order dated 12.3.1984, Annexure P11, deserves to be quashed. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P11 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to respondent No. 4 for taking afresh decision in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties and after receiving all the evidence which the parties may lead. 11. In view of the fact that the matter has been pending for over 20 years, let the fresh decision be taken within a period of three months from today. 12. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the District Transport Officer, Patiala i,e,, respondent No. 4 on 31.3.2004 for further proceedings. 13. A copy of this order be given dasti to Mr. H.S.Sran, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, duly authenticate by the Special Secretary .(D) of this Court for onwards transmission to respondent No. 4, for compliance. Petition allowed.