Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had purchased a new BMW Car in the year, 2011, for his personal use. He had made an application for its registration, as per the provisions of Sections 40 and 41 of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988, read with Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, before the registering authority, at Puducherry. On such registration, the registering authority concerned had assigned the registration number PY-01-BK-4747, in respect of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, on 29.6.2011. At the time of the registration the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.50,000 towards the Life Time Tax. 3. It had been further stated that the place of residence of the petitioner is at Tiruppur, with business activities, both at Tiruppur and at Puducherry. The registering authority at Puducherry, while registering the vehicle of the petitioner, had rightly noted the residential addresses of the petitioner, at Tiruppur, as well as at Puducherry. While so, the second respondent, without following the procedures established by law, had orally demanded the payment of the Life Time Tax of about Rs.5,00,000/-, in respect of the vehicle in question, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. He had also threatened the petitioner with coercive action, if the demand made by the second respondent was not complied with, by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the action of the respondents in demanding, orally, the payment of the Life Time Tax, by the petitioner, in respect of the State of Tamilnadu, under threat of coercive action, is improper and illegal. It had also been stated that the respondents have been compelling the petitioner to pay the Life Time Tax, without understanding the scope and ambit of the relevant provioins of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules framed there under. The petitioner cannot be asked to pay the tax after the vehicle in question had been registered, in Puducherry, as per the relevant provisions of law. 5. The petitioner cannot be asked to pay the tax after the vehicle in question had been registered, in Puducherry, as per the relevant provisions of law. 5. He had further submitted that it is a well settled position in law that an owner of the vehicle, who has his permanent residence in a particular place, can carry on his business in other places, situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the original registering authority. The demand being made by the respondents, for the payment of tax, by the petitioner, in respect of the State of Tamil Nadu, is arbitrary and illegal. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Writs) appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, in limine, as it is premature in nature. He had also submitted that no writ petition can be filed praying for a general relief, as in the present writ petition. It had also been submitted that the petitioner has not shown, by way of records, that a formal demand had been made, asking him to pay the Life Time Tax, in respect of the vehicle in question. While so, it is not proper for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, by filing the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to forbear the respondents from demanding the payment of Life Time Tax, for the use of his vehicle, bearing Registration No.PY-01-BK-4747, in the State of Tamilnadu. As such, it is clear that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits. It is a well settled position of law that an omnibus prayer, as in the present writ petition, cannot be made. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the Life Time Tax had been levied or demanded by the authorities concerned, in respect of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner. It is a well settled position of law that an omnibus prayer, as in the present writ petition, cannot be made. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the Life Time Tax had been levied or demanded by the authorities concerned, in respect of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner. As such it is clear that the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is premature in nature and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.