JUDGMENT The petitioner, who claims to be the owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No.U.P. 53 BT 9449 did not deposit the road tax for the period 1 March 2013 to 30 November 2015 and when on his application for deposit of the tax, he was informed that he should deposit an amount of Rs.1,30,438/- towards tax and Rs.96,643/- towards fine, he filed Writ C No.67840 of 2015 in which the following order was passed: - "Since the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 10(b) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2009 is challenged, notice shall be issued to the Advocate General. The Counter affidavit, if any, shall be filed before the next date of listing. Connect with Writ Tax No. 516 of 2011(M/S Bundela Red Granites Vs. State of U.P. and others). In the meantime, the payment of the tax and penalty shall abide by the final result of the petition." 2. The petitioner then made a request to the Regional Transport Officer that the petitioner was ready to deposit the tax after the High Court decided the writ petition and that tax for the subsequent period should only be demanded from him. This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to decide the application dated 1 February 2016 filed by the petitioner for payment of tax from 1 December 2015 upto date and to permit the petitioner to ply the vehicle. 3. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the petition is frivolous and should be dismissed. 4. There is no good reason as to why the petitioner should not have deposited the tax for the period 1 March 2013 to 30 November 2015 as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court merely provided that the payment of the tax and penalty shall abide by the final result of the petition. This does not mean that the petitioner was not obliged to deposit the tax. 5. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.