Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition, though termed as writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from in any way insisting, demanding the arrears of tax for the 3 buses viz. TN 45 Y 4244, TN 32 V 2130 and TAP 1971 for a period between 31/03/2003 and 30/06/2007. 2. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot issue any prohibitory orders restricting the authorities to recover the tax arrears. The petitioner in fact should have challenged the demand notice by way of writ of certiorari. 3. The petitioner is running an Engineering College affiliated to Anna University, Chennai. The first respondent, the State of Tamil Nadu, vide order dated 31.7.2003, decided to increase the Motor Vehicle Tax in respect of the vehicle owned by the Educational Institution from Rs.500/- per quarter to Rs.150/-per seat, other than the driver. This was made operative with effect from 1.8.2003. 4. The Educational Institution being aggrieved by the Government Order, challenged its constitutional validity by filing writ petitions before this Court. The writ petitions were dismissed by this Court. Some of the institutions being aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, approached the Honourable Supreme Court of India. 5. The Special Leave Petition filed against the order passed by this court stands admitted and interim stay granted against the demand notice. 6. The petitioner challenges the increased tax on the ground that the Government Order is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Constitution of India. The order is said to be against the directive principle of the State policy. This plea was not available to the petitioner since the matter is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court has already upheld the validity of the Government Order, specially when this is not the first writ petition filed by the petitioner but second petition. 7. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that the order passed by the Honourable Supreme court will be followed by the respondents, and the petitioner was paying the tax as per the Government Order in force. 8. The petitioner suddenly received the demand notice dated 3.8.2009 demanding payment of arrears of tax for a period between 1.4.2003 and 31.3.2007 with regard to 14 buses owned by the petitioner. 9. 8. The petitioner suddenly received the demand notice dated 3.8.2009 demanding payment of arrears of tax for a period between 1.4.2003 and 31.3.2007 with regard to 14 buses owned by the petitioner. 9. The petitioner challenged the said notice in the writ petition No 22864 of 2009, in which interim stay was granted. However, subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of finally on 15.11.2010. The operative part of the judgment passed by this Court reads as under, "When the matter was taken up for disposal, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that out of the 14 vehicles, permits of three busses has been lapsed and the demand is only in respect of the said three buses. Therefore, he would confine his argument to the effect that he may be permitted to make a representation so as to seek necessary exemption from payment of tax. Recording the above submission and recording the submission that the tax has been levied in respect of three buses, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the appropriate authority concerned, namely, Regional Transport Appellate Authority, and the authority concerned shall consider and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. With the above observation, the writ petition is closed. No relief can be granted in respect of prayer. " 10. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuant of the order passed by this Court, a representation was filed, but no decision thereof has been taken by the respondents. 11. The stand of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the documents placed on record do not show any representation after the decision of this Court on 15.11.2010. The petitioner on an earlier occasion chose not to press the writ petition on merit but prayed for liberty of this Court to permit the petitioner to file representation. The permission was granted with a direction to the respondent to pass a speaking order thereon. 12. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, he chose not to file any representation, instead, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition against the demand notice. 13. In view of the previous order passed by this Court permitting the petitioner to file a representation, this writ petition is not competent. 12. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, he chose not to file any representation, instead, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition against the demand notice. 13. In view of the previous order passed by this Court permitting the petitioner to file a representation, this writ petition is not competent. The only order which would have been passed on the representation, could give the cause of action to the petitioner to file a fresh writ, but the demand which was the subject matter of the challenge in the earlier writ petition, can not give any new cause of action. The writ petition being totally misconceived, is dismissed. 14. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. No costs.