Judgment : ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6th May, 1999 passed by the Transport Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay. 2. The petitioner herein is the owner of the Leyland Truck No.MTS 9563. He used to ply the vehicle for the purpose of transportation of various goods. It is the case of the petitioner that being unemployed, the petitioner applied for loan to the Bank of India Branch at Jalgaon and after receiving the loan from the said Bank, he purchased the said vehicle. It is specific case of the petitioner that the said vehicle was purchased under the scheme made for unemployed persons. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the said truck met with an accident and it was handed over to Indore Body Builders, Jalgaon for proper repairing. It is the case of the petitioner that the expenses incurred by the petitioner for repairing of the said truck were so high that he could not pay the said amount to the owner of the Indore Body Builders, Jalgaon. Therefore, the truck of the petitioner remained with the owner of Indore Body Builders. The truck was not running on road since 25th September, 1984. 4. The petitioner applied to the Transport Commissioner, M.S., Bombay through the respondent No.1 on 9th October, 1992 to issue certificate in favour of the petitioner about non use of the said truck. It is the case of the petitioner that in the said application, the petitioner did mention that the petitioner has paid the taxes up to 31st October, 1984 and the truck was not used further from 18th October, 1984 to 31st March, 1990. The petitioner applied to respondent No.2 for issuing certificate of non use of the said truck for the aforesaid period. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 R.T.O., Jalgaon had made necessary inquiry and submitted report to the Transport Commissioner - respondent No.2, in which it was mentioned that the truck was lying in idle condition in the garage from last 6 to 7 years. It is further case of the petitioner that the said recommendations by the R.T.O., Jalgaon were sent by the officers of the respondent No.1 some time in the month of December, 1990. It is further case of the petitioner that the said recommendations by the R.T.O., Jalgaon were sent by the officers of the respondent No.1 some time in the month of December, 1990. It is specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner did produce on record sufficient evidence and documents to demonstrate that the vehicle was not plying on road and it was lying in idle condition for about last 10 years. There are letters issued by Indore Body Builders and the statement of the Appolo Transport Company and the statements of some of the persons to show that the truck was lying idle in the said garage. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that the statements and documents were considered by the Regional Transport Officer and in the month of December, 1990 a report was sent by the respondent No.1 recommending that the truck of the petitioner was lying in idle condition. The statement in the form of Jahirnama about non use of the Truck was submitted by the petitioner on 3.4.1991 to respondent No.1 for the period from 1st April, 1991 to 31st March, 1991. By letter dated 5th April, 1991, the Regional Transport Officer, Jalgaon communicated to the petitioner that the petitioner should not remove the vehicle from the premises mentioned in the application without written permission of the respondent No.1. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned in this petition is a non speaking order, no reasons have been recorded by the authority while refusing to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (for short, referred to as "the said Act") gives discretion to the Transport Commissioner to give go by to the formalities of filing an application in advance and it is left to the Transport Commissioner, on the facts of the case, to take into consideration the period for which the vehicle was not plying on the road and use discretion to exempt the vehicle owner from paying any tax. The learned Counsel further submits that the vehicle met with an accident in the year, 1984 and since then, it was lying idle with the garage. The learned Counsel further submits that the vehicle met with an accident in the year, 1984 and since then, it was lying idle with the garage. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the report of the R.T.O., Jalgaon was in favour of the petitioner, and the documents and evidence was produced on record before the Transport Commissioner, the Transport Commissioner, without any detail discussion or without adverting to the documents, report of the R.T.O., Jalgaon, has passed a cryptic order. Therefore, this Court may interfere in the said order by allowing this petition. He further invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and the annexures thereto and submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents invited my attention to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act and submitted that if the vehicle met with an accident, in that case, an intimation is required to be given to the authorities. In normal course, if the vehicle owner wishes to avail benefits of the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, an intimation is required to be given in advance and then only a certificate of non use of the vehicle can be issued. He further submits that in the instant case, the evidence which was produced before the Transport Commissioner was collected in the year, 1990. There is nothing on record indicating that from 1984 till 1990 the vehicle was lying in idle condition. The sum and substance of the arguments of the learned A.G.P. is that while exercising the discretion under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act, it is not necessary for the Transport Commissioner to give elaborate reasons. Two reasons have been assigned by the Transport Commissioner in the impugned order and the Transport Commissioner has refused to exercise his discretion in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 8. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions and pleadings in the petition, grounds taken therein and the annexures including the impugned order passed by the Transport Commissioner. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Transport Commissioner has given two reasons for not exercising the discretion in favour of the petitioner. 8. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions and pleadings in the petition, grounds taken therein and the annexures including the impugned order passed by the Transport Commissioner. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Transport Commissioner has given two reasons for not exercising the discretion in favour of the petitioner. The Transport Commissioner, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, has recorded the findings that it does not appeal to the conscience that the said vehicle was lying idle from 1984 to 1990. The second reason assigned is that the evidence produced on record by the petitioner has been collected in the year, 1990. There is nothing brought on record to show that for earlier years 1984, 1985, 1986 etc., the vehicle was lying in idle condition. I find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned A.G.P. that nothing has been placed on record to show that the vehicle of the petitioner had met with an accident in the year, 1984. Perusal of the provisions in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the said Act make it clear that the registered owner or any person having possession or control of a motor vehicle has to give an intimation in advance to the Taxation Authority in the prescribed manner about non use of the vehicle. It is an admitted position in the present case that no such intimation was given by the petitioner to the Taxation Authority or to any competent authority for that reason. Even, in case of an accident, mechanical defect or any other sufficient cause, which makes it impossible to give an advance intimation as aforesaid, then such intimation may be given in the prescribed manner within a period of seven days from the date of occurrence of such accident, or such other cause. Undisputedly, In the present case, no such exercise was done by the petitioner. 9. Upon perusal of the sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act, it is abundantly clear that if the Transport Commissioner is satisfied, he can exercise the discretion in favour of the owner of the vehicle even if no intimation has been given as contained in subsection (2) of Section 3 of the said Act. 9. Upon perusal of the sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act, it is abundantly clear that if the Transport Commissioner is satisfied, he can exercise the discretion in favour of the owner of the vehicle even if no intimation has been given as contained in subsection (2) of Section 3 of the said Act. However, the important thing is that the Transport Commissioner must be satisfied that the motor vehicle was not used or kept for use in the State during any period. 10. In the instant case, on the strength of the evidence brought on record and upon appreciation of the evidence and also the contentions of the petitioner, the Transport Commissioner was not satisfied that the vehicle owned by the petitioner was not used or kept for use in the State during the said period and, therefore, the Transport Commissioner declined to grant certificate that the said motor vehicle was not used or kept for use during the period mentioned in the application of the petitioner. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner was at pains to argue that the Transport Commissioner was obliged to give reasons while rejecting the request of the petitioner to issue certificate of non use, in my opinion, and on careful reading of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Transport Commissioner is not required to give elaborate reasons. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act make it incumbent or obligatory on the part of the Transport Commissioner if the Transport Commissioner wants to exercise the discretion in favour of the vehicle owner in absence of his intimation about the non use of the vehicle. 11. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, viewed from any angle, in my opinion, no case is made out to upset / set aside the impugned order passed by the Transport Commissioner. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.