Judgment :- The legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P.No.20269/2007 dated 21-01-2008 is called in question in this appeal. The facts leading to this case are hereunder. 2. The appellant is a registered owner of a bus bearing No.KA-.B.1130 which was purchased by him on 01-09-2004 from M/s Aravind Motors Private Limited, Mangalore. On 10-04-2006 on account of mechanical problem he left the vehicle with M/s Aravind Motors Private Limited demanding the dealer to get the vehicle replaced. As there was no proper response from the dealer appellant raised a dispute before the District Consumer Redressal Forum after exchange of legal notices in complaint No.196/2006 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Mangalore. On 22-04-2006 the appellant intimated to the RTO by surrendering the documents with regard to nonuse of vehicle and sought for exemption from payment of tax. On 28-04-2006 RTO accepted the request of the appellant. Accordingly the vehicle was left with Aravind Motors Private Limited, H.C.V. Work shop, Kulur Junction, Mangalore. The vehicle was removed from the place of parking by M/s Aravind Motors to another garage in front of the place of parking. The motor vehicle inspector inspected the place and noticed that the vehicle was not found during inspection. Accordingly, Annexure-F to the writ petition was issued on 05-09-2006 stating that in stead of parking the vehicle at M/s Aravind Motors Private Limited Kulur junction, the vehicle was found to be stantioned at No.152, Baikampady Industrial Area of M/s Aravind Motors Private Limited. Based on the same the appellant was called upon to pay tax with penalty. The same was challenged by the appellant by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner for Transport Shimoga Division in appeal DCT.SMG.Tax-20/2006-07 which appeal came to be dismissed on 28-08-2007. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.20269/2007. The learned Judge after hearing the parties having come to the conclusion that when the premises was inspected the vehicle in question was not stationed and the same was removed to Baikampady Industrial Area of M/s Aravind Motors Private Limited and that appellant had not taken prior permission to shift the vehicle from M/s Aravind Motors Private Limited, Kulur Junction to Baikampady Industrial area. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contends that the authorities could have found fault with this appellant if on his own moved the vehicle from Aravind Motors Private Limited, Kulur junction to Baikampady Industrial Area. According to him without the knowledge of the appellant on account of the non-availability of the space at M/s Aravind Motors Private Limited had removed the vehicle to another shed which is at Baikampady Industrial Area, Mangalore. In the circumstances, he contends that the respondent authorities could not have been found fault with the appellant. In order to prove that the vehicle had been wrongly shifted by Aravind Motors, he relied upon the judgment of the Mangalore District Consumer Forum, Mangalore. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate contends that even if M/s Aravind Motors on their own had shifted the vehicle from Kulur junction to Baikampady Industrial Area, it was for the appellant to taken prior permission of the RTO. Since he has committed a mistake, he is liable to pay the tax and penalty. In the circumstances, she requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties the only point which arises for consideration is, whether the learned single Judge has committed an error in rejecting the writ petition. 7. After hearing the parties we have noticed the following undisputed facts in this appeal. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was purchased by the appellant from M/s Aravind Motors Private Limited, Mangalore who is a dealer of Tata Vehicles. It is also not in dispute that since there was a regular mechanical problem in the vehicle before the expiry of warranty period, the vehicle was stationed by the appellant within the premises of M/s Aravind Motors Private Limited, Kulur junction, Mangalore. He has also intimated the RTO by surrendering the documents with regard to non-use of the vehicle and seeking exemption from payment of tax. It is also not in dispute that the RTO has granted permit to surrender the vehicle. 8. From looking into Annexure-F, it is clear when the premises of M/s Aravind Motors Private Limited at Kulur junction was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the vehicle of the appellant was not parked there. It is also not in dispute that the RTO has granted permit to surrender the vehicle. 8. From looking into Annexure-F, it is clear when the premises of M/s Aravind Motors Private Limited at Kulur junction was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the vehicle of the appellant was not parked there. When the Inspector has enquired with Aravind Motors Private Limited, it was informed to him by the workers in the garage that the vehicle is parked in their Baikampady Industrial Area garage. Accordingly, the Motor Vehicle Inspector has inspected the garage of Aravind Motors at Baikampady Industrial Area wherein the vehicle was stationed. From looking into the orders passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum it is seen that the vehicle was surrendered by the appellant and left with Aravind Motors Private Limited and on merits the Dakshina Kannada Redressal Forum on 29-11-2007 in complaint No.196/2006 has directed M/s Aravind Motors Private Limited to repair the vehicle perfectly and return it in good condition within 15 days from the date of the said order. Further, the forum directed the appellant herein to take possession of the same. From this order it is clear that the vehicle in question was within the custody of M/s Aravind Motors Private Limited, Bangalore from 11-4-2006 till the date of the order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum. From this, it is amply proved that he has not mis-used the vehicle and the vehicle has not been used on road and vehicle was moved from the garage of Aravind Motors Private Limited, Kulur Junction to Baikampady Industrial Area and he was in no way responsible for removing the vehicle from one garage of Aravind Motors to another garage of Aravind Motors. This aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by the learned single Judge. Therefore, we are of the view that an error is committed by the learned single Judge which calls for our interference. 9. In the result the appeal is allowed. The order passed in W.P.No.20269/2007 dated 21-1-2008 and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport. Taxation Appellate Authority Shimoga Division dated 28-8-2007 and the order passed by the RTO, Mangalore on 2-1-2007 demanding the petitioner-appellant to pay the tax and penalty are hereby quashed. Accordingly the appeal is allowed.