http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1331 of 2008

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

RESPONDENT: BALWINDER SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/02/2008

BENCH: S.H. KAPADIA & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R        (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 12999/07)                  Leave granted.   

       Heard learned counsel on both sides.         This appeal is filed by State of Punjab against the judgment and order  dated 23.11.2006 in CWP No. 9291/2006.  By the impugned judgment  Proviso to Rule 10 of Punjab Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules 1925 was  sought to be challenged is ultra vires Sec.13 of Punjab Motor Vehicle  Taxation Act 1924.         By the impugned judgment the High Court has allowed the writ petition.   We quote the operative part of the impugned judgment:

       \023In view of the above, we allow this petition and  declare Proviso to Rule 10 of the Rules to be ultra vires  the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act. We make it  clear that even if registration certificate is not  deposited, the permit holder will be entitled to  exemption if he proves to the satisfaction of the  competent authority that the vehicle was not used.   Accordingly, the impugned order denying exemption to  the petitioner for the period prior to the date of deposit  of registration certificate is set aside and respondent  No.4 is directed to consider the matter afresh without  taking into account Proviso to Rule 10 of the Rules.\024

       Suffice it to state that if the Proviso to Rule 10 according to the High  Court was ultra vires (inconsistent) with Sec.13(1) of Punjab Motor  Vehicle Taxation Act, we fail to understand on what basis the High Court  has stated that the exemption application made by the respondent should  be decided afresh without taking into account the said proviso.  No  reasons have been given for allowing the impugned proviso to remain on  the statute book and at the same time directing the authority to ignore the  said proviso while deciding the exemption application.

       In view of this inherent contradiction in the operative part of the order we  set aside the impugned judgment and we remit the matter to the High  Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

       The Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.