By The Court—The petitioners are plying their vehicles on different routes of Lucknow and Moradabad Regions on the basis of the valid stage carriage permits granted by the concerned Regional Transport Authorities.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioners presently are aggrieved by the demand of additional tax, as per the provisions of U.P. Ordinance No. 19 of 2002, which is now known as U.P. Act No. 4 of 2003.3. There was a bunch of writ petitions which were dismissed in the year 2007 itself.4. It appears that the petitioners did not deposit the balance of additional tax and, therefore, demand was raised by the respondents, aggrieved by which, they filed Writ Petition No. 5368 (MB) of 2006, in re: Dharam Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein an interim order of stay was passed on 22.12.06, requiring them to deposit 35% of the difference of the additional tax amount and subject to the aforesaid deposit, the recovery was stayed.5. Number of writ petitions were filed alongwith the writ petition of Dharam Singh (supra) and Writ Petition No. 6929 (MB) of 2007 was the leading writ petition.6. The writ petitions were dismissed after rejecting the plea of the petitioners that the amendment made in the Fourth Schedule, laid down the slab upto 9000 k.m. instead of different slabs provided earlier and upholding the legality of the recovery of difference of the additional tax which was levelled in terms of the rules.7. While dismissing the writ petitions, on the request made by the petitioners, the Division Bench observed that the petitioners are at liberty to make a representation to the State Government raising their grievance and the State Government shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders taking into account the fact that the petitioners have actually plied their vehicle during the relevant period or not.8. In pursuance of the observations aforesaid, the petitioners approached the State Government by making a representation and asserted that they were entitled to pay the additional tax at a lower rate and the same cannot be realized in terms of the aforesaid amended Schedule 4-A.9. In pursuance of the observations aforesaid, the petitioners approached the State Government by making a representation and asserted that they were entitled to pay the additional tax at a lower rate and the same cannot be realized in terms of the aforesaid amended Schedule 4-A.9. The State Government vide order dated 26.2.2010 has rejected the representation of the petitioners, saying that the amendment in Schedule 4-A has not been given effect to, or does not stand implemented is not correct and that the petitioners have plied their vehicle during the period concerned, a fact, which was not disputed by the petitioners also.10. Sri Ashish Saxena, appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently urged that the petitioners were liable for payment of additional tax at a rate, much lower than what is being demanded.11. His submission is that as per the unamended Fourth Schedule, referable to Section 6 of the Act, the rate of tax upto 5700 k.m. is Rs. 256/- on ‘A’ Class routes and Rs. 288/- on ‘B’ Class routes, and exceeding 5700 k.m. but not exceeding 7200 k.m., the tax is Rs. 325/- on ‘A’ Class routes and Rs. 361/- on ‘B’ Class routes, and over and above 9000 k.m. but not exceeding 11700 k.m., the tax is Rs. 465/- on ‘A’ Class routes and Rs. 511/- on ‘B’ Class routes.12. Submission is, that as per the slabs aforesaid, the tax can be realized from the petitioners.13. Learned counsel for the State Sri H.P. Srivastava, in response, submitted that the aforesaid plea already stands rejected by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Manju Rani Agarwal, and therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to raise this plea. Further, it is submitted that after the amendment in Fourth Schedule, the rates as prescribed therein, would be applicable and not the rates, which the petitioners are claiming.14. In the Division Bench judgment aforesaid, we find that such a plea was raised, but not accepted. Even otherwise, after the validity of the aforesaid Act having been upheld in the writ petitions filed earlier, as mentioned in the judgement of Smt. Manju Rani Agarwal, there is no occasion for this Court to address on this issue again.15. It is not disputed that for the period in question, the petitioners did ply their vehicles and, therefore, they are liable to pay additional tax, as prescribed.16. It is not disputed that for the period in question, the petitioners did ply their vehicles and, therefore, they are liable to pay additional tax, as prescribed.16. The alternative plea, that unless the vehicle is plied for 9000 k.m., no such additional tax can be levelled or realized, is also not accepted for the reason that if such an interpretation is given to the rules, it would mean that if they ply for less than 9000 k.m., they would stand exempted from tax, whereas no such exemption is provided under the rules. The only difference in the unamended schedule and the amended schedule is, that previously there were different slabs for different distances, but under the amended schedule, any vehicle which is plied upto 9000 k.m. would be liable to pay the same tax.17. No fault can be attributed to the respondents when they demand the aforesaid tax.18. The writ petitions have no force, which are hereby dismissed. The petitioners are allowed to deposit the tax demanded within a month, if the same has not been deposited by them. If the petitioners fail to make the aforesaid deposit, the recovery proceedings can be resumed after the expiry of the period of one month.(Petitions dismissed)_____________