Subramania Iyer, J.:— This is an application presented by the Swaraj Motors Ltd., a public limited company having its registered office at Kottayam. The application is for a writ of ‘certiorari’ to quash three orders of assessment to professional tax made by the Alwaye Municipality for the second half year of 1121, for both the half years of 1122 and for the second half year of 1123. The last of the orders was dated 20-11-1123. The main business of the Company is motor transport. Alwaye is one of the two terminals between which their buses pay. There were assessments to professional tax for the first, half year of 1123 which was challenged by appeal to the Council. The appeal was rejected on 28-9-1124. There was an assessment to professional tax for both the half years of 1124. That was not impeached. The application to this Court was made on 24-9-1951, i.e, after 3½ years from the last order aforesaid.
2. The only ground on which relief is sought in the petition is that no part of the business of the Company is transacted within the jurisdiction of the Alwaye Municipality.
3. By a supplementary affidavit another ground is taken, namely, that the assessment to professional tax which was made on the turnover of the business was wrong and that the proper basis for assessment is the percentage, if any, fixed by the Government under R. 18(2) of Sch. II to the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 23 of 1116. All the grounds taken by the petitioner were controverted in the counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent, the Alwaye Municipality. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner Company has a Booking Office within the Alwaye Municipality, that tickets are issued therefrom to passengers and that collections to the tune of over a lakh of rupees every year are being made, which would be clear from the letters written to the Municipality by the Company. These statements were not controverted by any affidavit in reply.
4. It is clear that the petitioner Company had been doing the business of motor transport partly within the jurisdiction of the Alwaye Municipality and that they were liable to be assessed to, professional tax therefor. Indeed, we do not understand the petitioner setting up a case of immunity from liability to assessment to professional tax the only case set up being that having been assessed to professional tax in respect of their entire income by the Kottayam Municipality within whose jurisdiction the Registered Office is situate it (the Company) is not liable to a fresh levy by another Municipality.
5. No reason is mentioned in the petition why the relief that the petitioner now seeks was not sought earlier. The Travancore High Court was entertaining applications for write of certiorari. The application could have been presented before that High Court. After the integration of the two States of Travancore and Cochin and even after the inauguration of the Constitution of India whereunder the present application is made there has been a delay of over a year and a half in presenting this application. No reason is mentioned by the petitioner why the application was not presented earlier. Applications of this description which are for extraordinary remedies should be presented promptly.
6. The rules framed by this Court have not prescribed any limit of time within which such applications ought to be presented. This Court has, however, refused to interfere in cases where the applications are made after an unreasonable lapse of time. In — ‘K.T Abraham… v. The State Of Travancore-Cochin’, AIR 1954 Trav-C 55 (A), a Division Bench of this Court following decisions of other High Courts took the view that an application presented after a long delay should be rejected. In — ‘O.P No. 25 of 1953 (TC)(B)’ a single Judge of this Court took that view. In — ‘O.P Nos. 52 and 54 of 1953 (TC)(C)’ another single Judge took the same view.
7. We consider that the conventional period permitted for presentation of civil revision petitions may be regarded as a reasonable time for the presentation of applications for writs, orders or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No hard and fast rule can, however, be laid down and it would be within the discretion of the Judge or Bench trying the petition to interfere in appropriate cases even if the applications are presented beyond the aforesaid period of time. In this case, as would be clear from the facts mentioned above, there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching this Court which under the circumstances should be considered fatal to the petition which is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150/-.
8. Petition dismissed.