AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
The writ petition was preferred by a contract carriage operator seeking a direction to refix the Motor Vehicles Tax structure of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-28-D-2273 taking note of the decision in Shaiju v. Joint Regional Transport Officer (2017 (4) KLT 691).
By the judgment under review, this Court directed the respondent to fix the tax structure of the petitioner’s vehicle in question based on the observations in the decision referred above after inspecting the vehicle, and if it is found to be one with fixed seats, the tax was directed to be assessed at the rate applicable to such vehicles.
The review petition has been preferred at the instance of the respondent in the writ petition alleging that the decision in Shaiju v. Joint Regional Transport Officer (2017 (4) KLT 691) does not apply to the facts of this case due to the introduction of the Bus Body Code dated 22.4.2020. 4. Smt.Resmitha Ramachandran, learned Government Pleader pointed out that the vehicle of the writ petitioner was manufactured after the coming into force of the Bus Body Code and therefore, the tax structure, as stipulated in the decision, cannot be made applicable. It was further pointed out that the registration certificate of the vehicle produced as Ext.P1 itself shows that the vehicle was manufactured in February 2018 and is a Type III AC Deluxe Bus. As per the Bus Body Code Type III AC Deluxe Bus means a long-distance air-conditioned bus which does not contemplate any standing passengers, and therefore the levy of tax as directed in Shaiju's case (supra) cannot apply. 5. Sri.G.Hariharan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent in the review petition opposed the review and submitted that the date of manufacture or the type of bus has no relevance and that the judgment under review does not require any reconsideration.
On an appreciation of the contentions raised, I notice that the writ petition was filed on 16.3.2022 and was disposed of on 17.3.2022. No opportunity was granted to the respondent to get instructions or even to file a counter affidavit. The judgment was rendered without noticing the type of the bus under which it was registered. Since the vehicle was admittedly manufactured after the coming into force of the Bus Body Code, the standards prescribed under the Bus Body Code may have to be scrupulously adhered to. However, whether the decision in Shaiju v. Joint Regional Transport Officer (2017 (4) KLT 691) can apply to the case of the petitioner is a matter which requires consideration after affording an opportunity to the respondent in the writ petition to file its counter affidavit.
Since this Court had failed to grant an effective opportunity to the respondent to contradict the averments and in the light of the nature of contentions to be put forth, I am of the view that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Accordingly, I recall the judgment dated 17.3.2022 in W.P. (C) No.8993 of 2022 and allow this review petition.