Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned order of the respondent in dated 14.11.2011 demanding tax in respect of the petitioner's vehicle TAS No.5315. 2. Facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are thus: 2.1. The petitioner was a contract carriage operator operating an Omni Bus in respect of the vehicle TAS 5315 to ply in Trichy District alone. The said permit was valid upto 25.04.1999. As there was a major repair in respect of the vehicle, the petitioner sent a stoppage report on 31.07.1996 along with Registration Certificate and Insurance Certificate of the vehicle. In Column 6 of the stoppage report, the petitioner has stated the probable date of resumption as 01.08.1996. Since major repairs were not completed, the petitioner was unable to ply the vehicle after 01.08.1996 and the vehicle was in the service shop. 2.2. As the vehicle did not ply from 01.08.1996 onwards, the petitioner did not pay tax from August 1996 till December 1996. Subsequently, on 27.11.1996, the petitioner sent a stoppage report along with necessary challan and also a letter from M/s. Jerena Diesel Works and also the Bill from the said workshop. He has also enclosed the Bill from one M/s.MRS Auto Spares. In that letter, the petitioner has also stated that the vehicle which was originally stopped for repairs at 14, Williams Road, Trichy has been shifted to the workshop of one K.Naina Mohammed, Jerena Auto Diesel Works, Trichy in order to carry out gearbox and wheel alignment, etc. But, the stoppage report along with his letter and also the Bills were returned by the respondent on 04.12.1996. In the said Return Memo, the petitioner has been asked to send a reply for the Memo dated 23.11.1996, but the petitioner has not received any Memo. On the other hand, a Memo No.63206/A1/96 dated 25.11.1996 (signed by the Superintendent on 28.11.1996 and received by the petitioner on 06.12.1996), wherein, the Memo dated 23.11.1996 was not referred. On the other hand, the petitioner has been asked to pay a sum of Rs.74,000/-as tax and penalty for the period from 01.08.1996 to 30.09.1996 and also a sum of Rs.55,500/- for the QE 31.12.1996. On the other hand, the petitioner has been asked to pay a sum of Rs.74,000/-as tax and penalty for the period from 01.08.1996 to 30.09.1996 and also a sum of Rs.55,500/- for the QE 31.12.1996. Insofar as the month December 1996 is concerned, the petitioner has sent a stoppage report on 30.11.1996 itself for the period from 01.12.1996 onwards, along with necessary challan, since he was not in a position to ply the vehicle as the repairs were not completed. 2.3. The respondent, without issuing any show cause notice, had issued an impugned order demanding the petitioner to pay tax within seven days from the date of receipt of the impugned Memo dated 25.11.1996. Against that impugned demand, the petitioner approached this Court and filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.19272 of 1996 challenging the impugned demand Memo issued by the respondent asking the petitioner to pay the tax for the period 01.08.1996 to 30.09.1996 amounting to Rs.74,000/- and also a sum of Rs.55,500/-. Since the vehicle did not ply from 01.08.1996 and it was garaged at Jerena Diesel Workshop for repairs and also as the petitioner sent a stoppage report to the authority, the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax as per the demand impugned Memo dated 25.11.1996. This Court allowed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.19272 of 1996 on 28.01.2004 setting aside the impugned demand order with liberty to the respondent to process afresh after issuing a show cause notice and pass orders after holding an enquiry. 2.4. Even after receiving the said order of this Court dated 28.01.2004, the respondent did not conduct any enquiry and issue notice regarding the demand of tax. As there was no response from the respondent, the petitioner sold the vehicle to a third party. Now, after a lapse of seven years, the respondent has issued a show cause notice in Na.Ka.No.63206/c1/96 asking the petitioner to explain regarding the payment of tax for the period from 01.08.1996 to 31.12.1996 and calculated the tax amount for the period 01.08.1996 to 30.09.1996 amounting to Rs.37,000/-with penalty of Rs.37,000/-totalling to Rs.74,000/-, then for the period of 01.10.1996 to 31.12.1996, a sum of Rs.55,500/- with penalty of Rs.55,500/-totalling to Rs.1,10,000/-, in all, amount totalling to Rs.1,85,000/-and also stated that already a show cause notice was issued on 20.06.2005. However, no such show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, except the present show cause notice, in which regard, the petitioner has given his explanation on 24.10.2011. 2.5. After receiving the petitioner's explanation, the respondent held an enquiry on 14.11.2011 and on the same day, the impugned demand order was passed by the respondent . Having no other alternative remedy, the petitioner is before this court. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated as follows: (a) The petitioner is holding one contract carriage omni bus permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Trichirappalli for the vehicle TAS5315 vide Permit No.111/TRI/94 valid from 26.04.1994 to 25.04.1999. The permit holder has applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Trichirappalli seeking permission to remit a month's proportionate rate of tax for July 1996. The reasons adduced for stoppage of vehicle from 01.08.1996 are that he has to carry out certain repairs in the vehicle. The Regional Transport Authority, Trichirappalli has therefore granted permission to pay the tax under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 for the month of July 1996 only, i.e. one third of the quarterly rate of tax for the month of July 1996 for the Quarter ending 30.09.1996. The permit holder vide his stoppage report dated 31.07.1996 in form SPR-Part A has reported in Column No.5 that the vehicle was stopped at 14, Williams Road, Tiruchirappalli. In order to verify the stoppage of the vehicle TAS 5315, the matter was referred to the Motor Vehicles Inspector/Grade-I/Tiruchirappalli to verify the stoppage of the vehicle at the given address. (b) The Motor Vehicles Inspector/Grade-I/Tiruchirappalli, in his Report dated 11.11.1996 has reported that the vehicle TAS 5315 was not stopped at 14, Williams Road, Tiruchirappalli. He has also reported that the buses belonging to Ramajayam Bus Company are using that place for washing and the Driver and Conductors are using the place as resting place and that they have no knowledge about the vehicle TAS 5315. (c) Since the non-usage of the vehicle on road was not established by field verification, it is established that the stoppage of the vehicle 14, Williams Road, Tiruchirappalli is not correct. (c) Since the non-usage of the vehicle on road was not established by field verification, it is established that the stoppage of the vehicle 14, Williams Road, Tiruchirappalli is not correct. Therefore, the liability for payment of tax under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 arises and hence, a notice of demand to collect the tax for the period 01.08.1996 onwards with appropriate penalty was issued to the petitioner vide Memo No.63205/D1/96, dated 25.11.1996. The Memo was returned by the Postal Department with the remark "Bus Owner, Paramathi Road, Namakkal, Salem District." However, vide his letter dated 06.12.1996, he has voluntarily appeared in person and received the Notice of Demand issued in R.No.63206/B1/96, dated 23.11.1996. Therefore, the Notice of Demand was acknowledged by the petitioner on 06.12.1996. (d) As per Rule 172(6) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it shall be a condition of the permit of every transport vehicle that the vehicle will be so maintained as to be available for service for which the permit was granted for the entire period of currency of the permit and the permit is liable to be suspended and cancelled, after due notice to the permit holder if the vehicle has not been used for the purpose for which the permit was granted for a continuous period of more than ten days during the period for which the permit authorizes the use of the vehicle on road, unless the holder of the permit had obtained in writing the prior permission of the Transport Authority to suspend the service of the vehicle for a specific period exceeding ten days. (e) The proviso attached to the said Rule 172(6) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 are : (i) No holder of a permit shall ordinarily be granted permission to suspend the service of the vehicle for a continuous period exceeding twenty days at a time. (ii) The period may be extended by such further period or periods, as the Transport Authority thinks fit. (iii) The holder of a permit shall pay the fee prescribed. (ii) The period may be extended by such further period or periods, as the Transport Authority thinks fit. (iii) The holder of a permit shall pay the fee prescribed. (f) The petitioner had applied to the Regional Transport Authority/Tiruchirappalli to stop his contract Carriage Omni Bus TAS 5315 for the following periods: Date of Period seeking Fees paid Application permission 31.07.1996 Period not specified Rs.50/-, Ch.No.17472 dated 30.07.96/ST/Trichy 30.11.1996 1.12.96 to 20.12.96 Rs.25/-, Ch.No.57 dated 2.12.96/ST/Trichy 16.12.1996 21.12.96 to 09.01.97 Rs.25/-, Ch.No.5462 dated 12.12.96/ST/Trichy 08.01.1997 10.01.97 to 29.01.1997 Rs.25/- Ch.No.4622 dated 09.01.97/ST/Trichy (g) In all the applications filed by the petitioner before the Secretary/Regional Transport Authority/Tiruchirappalli seeking permission to stop the vehicle as required under Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules,1989, the petitioner has categorically furnished the place of stoppage as "14, Williams Road, Tiruchirappalli" in column No.5 of the Form S.P.R. Form Part – A. But, the Motor Vehicles Inspector/Grade-I/Tiruchirappalli, who was asked to verify the stoppage of the above vehicle, has reported that the vehicle TAS 5315 was not stopped there. Hence, the Secretary/Regional Transport Authority/Tiruchirappalli has not considered the applications filed by the petitioner for the grant of permission under Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Vehicles Rules, 1989. It is also established that the vehicle was not stopped at the place mentioned by the petitioner and therefore, the Regional Transport Officer/Tiruchirappalli raised the demand of tax payable under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974. On hearing the arguments, final judgment was passed in W.P.No.19272 of 1996 on 28.01.2004 stating that "the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed with liberty to the respondent to proceed afresh after issuing a show cause notice and holding an enquiry". According to the above judgment, a fresh show cause notice was sent on 29.06.2006 in R.No.63206/C1/1996 asking for the explanation as to why the tax demanded for the vehicle TAS 5315 for the period from 01.08.1996 to 11.11.1996 has not been collected. But, the show cause notice was returned as the owner was not found in that address. Therefore, the Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade I was asked to serve the same to the petitioner. In the meantime, the permit of the vehicle TAS 5315 was replaced by another vehicle TN45J 7799 w.e.f. 23.12.1998 as per the orders of the High Court in W.P.No.17752 of 1998. Therefore, the Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade I was asked to serve the same to the petitioner. In the meantime, the permit of the vehicle TAS 5315 was replaced by another vehicle TN45J 7799 w.e.f. 23.12.1998 as per the orders of the High Court in W.P.No.17752 of 1998. (h) The petitioner has not produced any explanation in this regard. Hence, once again, a fresh show cause notice was sent to the vehicle owner TAS 5315 on 13.09.2011 asking for an explanation as to why the tax demanded for the vehicle TAS 5315 for the period from 01.08.1996 to 31.12.1996 has not been collected. In his explanation dated 24.12.2011, the petitioner has stated that he has not plied that vehicle during the period in question. (i) Further, according to the judgment in W.P.No.19272 of 1996 dated 28.01.2011, an enquiry has also been conducted by the RTO, Trichy on 14.11.2011 with the owner of the vehicle Mr. P. Jayaprakash, together with the Advocate, Mr. P. Chandrasekaran. On enquiry, the owner reported that the transfer of place of stoppage of the above vehicle had not been intimated to the respondent office properly and even in the stoppage, applications were received during the above period. Moreover, he has not produced any valid evidence to prove that the vehicle was not plied during the above period. (j) The petitioner has not produced any valid material evidence to prove the stoppage. In all his applications filed by him before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Trichy seeking permission to stop the vehicle as required under Section 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989, the petitioner has categorically furnished the place of stoppage as 14, Williams Road, Trichy in column No.5 of the SPR Form Part A. But, the Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I/Trichy, who was asked to verify the stoppage of the above vehicle has reported that the vehicle TAS 5315 was not stopped there. Hence, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Trichy has not considered the applications filed by the petitioner for grant of permission under Rule 172(6) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It is also established that the vehicle was not stopped at the place mentioned by the petitioner. On the above grounds, the respondent seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Hence, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Trichy has not considered the applications filed by the petitioner for grant of permission under Rule 172(6) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It is also established that the vehicle was not stopped at the place mentioned by the petitioner. On the above grounds, the respondent seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 4. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has issued the impugned demand after seven years and that the authority has no power to issue such demand order according to Section 15-A of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1974. The respondent ought to have seen that the vehicle did not operate on the road for the period from 12.11.1996 to 31.12.1996. Learned counsel also contended that the respondent should have taken note of the fact that the earlier demand order dated 25.11.1996 was set aside by this Court with liberty to the respondent to hold an enquiry and then pass an order. 4a. In support of his case, learned counsel has relied on a decision of this court reported in 2004 (2) CTC 351 in the case of T.R. Varadarajanvs. The Regional Transport Officer, Virudhunagar, wherein, it is held as follows: "6.) Under the above provision, the Licensing Officer, at any time within a period of five years from the expiry of the period to which the tax relates, may issue a notice to the registered owner and make such enquiry and then direct the owner to pay tax which has not been paid. In the impugned order, dated 07.10.1996, the respondent has issued the demand to pay the difference of tax amount of Rs.22,500 for the period from 01.10.1985 to 31.03.1990. Though the petitioner has specifically averred that the above demand, having made after a period of five years, is contrary to Section 15-A of the Act and not valid, the respondent in the counter has not stated as to how the demand is sustainable in law. In short, this contention of the petitioner has not been met by the respondent. The only mode by which recovery of tax which escaped assessment can be made is by following the mandatory provisions prescribed under Section 15-A of the Act and it stipulates that demand must be made within a period of five years from the expiry of the period to which the tax relates. The only mode by which recovery of tax which escaped assessment can be made is by following the mandatory provisions prescribed under Section 15-A of the Act and it stipulates that demand must be made within a period of five years from the expiry of the period to which the tax relates. Admittedly, in the present case, the demand has been made beyond the period of five years and it is not legally sustainable. 7.) The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no prior notice as stipulated under Section 15-A of the Act was issued to the petitioner and no enquiry as contemplated therein was conducted by the respondent before making the demand and hence the demand is not valid in law. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent is silent on this aspect. The respondent neither issued notice nor considered the necessity for making any enquiry before issuing the demand and the mandatory provision under Section 15-A of the Act has not been followed and the demand is not valid in law. " 5. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the non-usage of the vehicle on road was not established by field verification and therefore, the liability for payment of tax under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 arises and hence, a notice of demand to collect the tax for the period from 01.08.1996 onwards with appropriate penalty was issued to the petitioner vide Memo No.63205/D1/96 dated 25.11.1996. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 7. Originally, on 25.11.1996, the respondent issued a demand notice to the petitioner demanding payment of tax for the vehicle TAS-5315. The said demand notice was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.19272 of 1996, wherein, this Court, by an order, dated 28.01.2004, quashed the said demand notice, with liberty to the respondent to proceed afresh after issuing a show-cause notice and holding an enquiry. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, dated 28.01.2004, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 29.06.2006 in R.No.63206/C1/1996, asking for explanation as to why the tax demanded for the vehicle TAS-5315 for the period from 01.08.1996 to 11.11.1996 had not been paid. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, dated 28.01.2004, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 29.06.2006 in R.No.63206/C1/1996, asking for explanation as to why the tax demanded for the vehicle TAS-5315 for the period from 01.08.1996 to 11.11.1996 had not been paid. But, the said show cause notice was returned as the owner was not found in that address. Therefore, the Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-I was asked to serve the same on the petitioner. In the meantime, the permit of the said vehicle was replaced by another vehicle TN 45J 7799 with effect from 23.12.1998 as per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.17752 of 1998. Since the petitioner had not produced any explanation, once again, a fresh show cause notice was sent to the owner of the vehicle TAS 5315 i.e., the petitioner on 13.09.2011, asking for explanation as to why the tax demanded for the vehicle TAS-5315 for the period from 01.08.1996 to 11.11.1996 was not paid. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner, by an explanation, dated 24.10.2011, stated that he had not plied the vehicle during the period in question. In addition to the show cause notice, an enquiry was also conducted by the respondent on 14.11.2011 with the petitioner together with the advocate of the petitioner, namely, P. Chandrasekaran. Since the explanation of the petitioner to the show cause notice coupled with the statement during the enquiry was not convincing, the respondent has passed the impugned order, demanding payment of tax amounting to Rs.1,24,270/-. 8. Under the circumstances, the one and only point that arises for consideration is : Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent/Road Transport Officer, demanding the petitioner to remit tax after the expiry of the period to which the tax relates, is valid in law ? 9. To decide the above issue, the sole provision that has to be examined is Section 15-A of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974. 9. To decide the above issue, the sole provision that has to be examined is Section 15-A of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974. Therefore, it is a sine qua non to extract the said Section, which reads as under : "15-A. Recovery of tax which escaped assessment.- Where for any reason, the whole or any portion of the tax which would have been payable in respect of any motor vehicle under this Act for any period has not been paid, the licensing officer may, at any time, within a period of five years from the expiry of the period to which the tax relates and after issuing a notice to the registered owner or the person having the possession or control of the motor vehicle and making such inquiry as he may consider necessary, direct such owner or other person to pay the whole or any portion of such tax, which has not been paid : Provided that in computing the period of five years for the purposes of this section, the period or periods, if any, during which the collection of such tax has been stayed by an order of any court shall be excluded." The above Section was inserted in Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1974 after Section 15 of the Principal Act on 18.08.1986 by way of an amendment in Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1986. 10. The above Section is categorical that if, for any reason, the whole or any portion of the tax which would have been payable in respect of any motor vehicle under the Act for any period has not been paid, the licensing officer may, at any time, within a period of five years from the expiry of the period to which the tax relates and after issuing a notice to the registered owner or the person having the possession or control of the motor vehicle and making such inquiry as he may consider necessary, direct such owner or other person to pay the whole or any portion of such tax, which has not been paid. The proviso clause to the said Section clarifies that in computing the period of five years, the period or periods, if any, during which the collection of such tax has been stayed by an order of any court shall be excluded. 11. The proviso clause to the said Section clarifies that in computing the period of five years, the period or periods, if any, during which the collection of such tax has been stayed by an order of any court shall be excluded. 11. Keeping the above principle in mind, if we see the present case, the period for which the tax has not been paid is from 01.08.1996 to 11.11.1996 and the direction to the owner of the vehicle for payment of the tax by the licensing officer should have been issued within a period of five years from the expiry of the period i.e., 11.11.1996, to which tax related, and the said five years ended on 10.11.2001. Since the proviso clause to Section 15-A clarifies that in computing the period of five years, the period or periods, if any, during which the collection of such tax has been stayed by an order of any court shall be excluded, and, in this case, a Writ Petition was pending all along from the year 1996 and there was an order of stay by this Court and the said Writ Petition having been disposed of only on 28.01.2004, the period from 11.11.1996 to 28.01.2004 has to be excluded for the purpose of calculating five years. So, the period of five years started from 28.01.2004 and ended on 27.01.2009. The respondent, following the order of this Court, dated 28.01.2004, as mandated under Section 15-A, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 29.06.2006 in R.No.63206/C1/1996, asking for explanation as to why the tax demanded for the vehicle TAS-5315 for the period from 01.08.1996 to 11.11.1996 had not been paid. Therefore, the said initial show cause notice was well within the limitation of five years. Since the said show cause notice was returned as the owner was not found in that address, the Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-I was asked to serve the same on the petitioner. Further, as the petitioner had not produced any explanation, once again, a fresh show cause notice was sent to the owner of the vehicle TAS 5315 i.e., the petitioner on 13.09.2011, asking for explanation for non-payment of tax, to which the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 24.10.2011, stating that he had not plied the vehicle during the period in question and hence he was not liable to pay tax. Added to the show cause notice, an enquiry was also conducted by the respondent on 14.11.2011 with the petitioner as well as his advocate. Since the explanation of the petitioner to the show cause notice coupled with the statement during the enquiry was not convincing, the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 14.11.2011, demanding payment of tax amounting to Rs.1,24,270/-, which, in my considered opinion, is perfectly valid. 12. The intention of legislature to bring an amendment by inserting Section 15-A is with an avowed object not to allow any owner of the vehicle to escape from payment of tax, which has been escaped already. Hence, the action contemplated by the respondent in issuing a show cause notice and conducting an enquiry and thereafter issuing demand notice to proceed with the collection of tax from the petitioner is within the power of the authority and the same is taken with an aim to prevent loss to the State. In other words, all efforts are made by the respondent from the year 1996 till-date to achieve the object of Section 15-A. 13. Though the contention of the petitioner is that he did not ply the vehicle during the period in question and hence he is not liable to pay tax, there are no convincing materials to accede to the said contention. In this regard, it is also to be stated that though originally the demand for levy of tax was proposed for the period from 01.08.1996 to 31.12.1996, based on the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, it was determined that there was no tax liability for the vehicle from 12.11.1996 to 31.12.1996, as the vehicle was found not utilised on the public road from 12.11.1996 to 31.12.1996. 14. As per section (1) to Rule 172 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules,1989, permit for a transport vehicle shall be granted to the owner on condition that the vehicle shall not be used on any public road after the expiry of the period prescribed in Rule (7) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules,1974, until such time the tax in respect of such vehicle or vehicles has been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under. Clause (6) provides that it shall be a condition of the permit of every transport vehicle that the vehicle will be so maintained as to be available for the service for which the permit was granted for the entire period of currency of the permit and that the permit is liable to be suspended or cancelled, after due notice to permit holder if the vehicle has not been used for the purpose for which the permit was granted for a continuous period of more than ten days during the period for which the permit authorise the use of the vehicle on the road, unless the holder of the permit had obtained in writing the prior permission of the Transport Authority to suspend the service of the vehicle for a specific period exceeding ten days; provided that no holder of a permit shall ordinarily be granted permission to suspend the service of the vehicle for a continuous period exceeding twenty days at a time; provided further that the period may be extended by such further period or periods as the Transport Authority thinks fit and also provided that the holder of the permit shall pay the fee prescribed under rule 279. Therefore, the payment of necessary taxes as per the Act and for the non-plying period shall be counted as per the permission obtained for that period. 15. In the instant case, the petitioner claims that he had permission for non-plying period and that such a permission for certain period had been allowed. Thereafter, for the period in question for not granting permit for the vehicle, the vehicle was not available for verification which was not explained by the petitioner and, therefore, the demand was made by the respondent for the period of non-payment of tax. In the absence of any availability of the vehicle during the inspection made by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, the period in question has been taken into account by the respondent, before passing the impugned demand notice. 16. By filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner has attempted to cast the blame on the respondent on demand of tax for the period in question, which, if concurred with, shall result in loss of revenue to the State exchequer and such an attempt made by the petitioner cannot be allowed to succeed. 17. Therefore, this Writ Petition deserves no merit consideration and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 17. Therefore, this Writ Petition deserves no merit consideration and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.MD.Nos.1 of 2011 and 1 of 2012 are closed.