Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4635 (MAD)

S. R. S. Travels, Proprietor K. T. Rajashekar v. State Transport Authority

2012-11-08

R.SUDHAKAR

body2012
Order: 1. Writ Petition No.30316 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent and his Subordinates, namely, all Regional Transport Officers, Motor Vehicle Inspectors to accept Motor Vehicles Tax for Tamil Nadu at the rate of 1/10th of quarterly tax or one month tax or one quarter tax when tendered voluntarily by the petitioner or in advance for 7 days or 30 days or 90 days use in Tamil Nadu instead of collecting 7 days tax per entry into Tamil Nadu in respect of the petitioner's Vehicle – KA-42-9771. 2. Writ Petition No.30317 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent and his Subordinates, namely, all Regional Transport Officers, Motor Vehicle Inspectors to accept Motor Vehicles Tax for Tamil Nadu at the rate of 1/10th of quarterly tax or one month tax or one quarter tax when tendered voluntarily by the petitioner or in advance for 7 days or 30 days or 90 days use in Tamil Nadu instead of collecting 7 days tax per entry into Tamil Nadu in respect of the petitioner's Vehicle – KA-42-9772. 3. Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. The relief sought for in both the writ petitions is one and the same. By consent both the writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal. 4. Referring to the series of orders passed by this Court, the petitioner in both the cases seeks a mandamus to direct the respondent to accept Motor Vehicle Tax at the rate 1/10th of quarterly tax or one month tax or one quarter tax when tendered voluntarily by the petitioner or in advance for 7 days or 30 days or 90 days use in Tamil Nadu instead of collecting 7 days tax per entry into Tamil Nadu in respect of the petitioner's Vehicles as above. 5. The relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted as such, merely on the basis that series of orders have been passed by this Court. Petitioner has not shown any cause of action for seeking mandamus, because there is no orders of any competent authority. There is not even a request letter to the authority either to grant the above relief. Hence, no mandamus as sought for can be granted. The Writ Petition is vague and bereft of details. Petitioner has not shown any cause of action for seeking mandamus, because there is no orders of any competent authority. There is not even a request letter to the authority either to grant the above relief. Hence, no mandamus as sought for can be granted. The Writ Petition is vague and bereft of details. In such view of the matter, no mandamus can be issued in respect of such a vague prayer. There is no proceedings of the respondent which affects the rights of the petitioner legally to seek the relief as above. 6. Finding no merits, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. However, liberty is given to file fresh writ petition if there is any cause of action arises.