1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:13044-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1351 of 2022 Date of Decision: 07.05.2025 _____________________________________________________ Prithvi Raj Chauhan ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kumar Tomar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Mr.Sushant Kaprate, Additional Advocates General, Mr. J.S. Guleria & Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocates General, for respondents No.1, 3 to 5/State. Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ________________________________________________ Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the impugned Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-1 i.e. notice dated 05.03.2020 issued by respondent No.3 and further notice of recovery issued by respondent No.5 and upheld by Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.01.2022 in Case/Appeal No.01 of 2021 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:13044-DB ) (ii) That petitioner may kindly be exempting from the Special Road Tax on the basis of notification No.TPT-C (10)1/2009 dated 09.03.2010 and at the same time petitioner may kindly be permitted to ply his bus on the bus route/road Painkuffer (Sirmour)-Dhamla (Sirmour)- Habban (Sirmour)-Rajgarh (Sirmour) under Sub- Division Rajgarh, District Sirmour, HP.” 2. It is not in dispute that the State earlier in the year 2009 had made certain exemptions of tax on rural roads, vide notification dated 02.03.2009. However, the said notification was thereafter rescinded after about a year on 09.03.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that since he is plying the bus in the rural area, therefore, he should have been extended the benefit of notification dated 02.03.2009. 3. During the course of hearing of this petition, this Court directed the petitioner to place on record the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, so as to enable this Court to know as to whether the petitioner indeed did purchase the vehicle after issuance of notification dated 02.03.2009 so as to invoke the applicability of the principles of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation, as the case may be. 4. In compliance to the said direction, the petitioner filed CMP No.9377 of 2025 for placing on record the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, which goes to indicate that the vehicle infact was registered on 09.04.2015. Meaning thereby that the 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:13044-DB ) petitioner at no stage had acted upon the notification dated 02.03.2009 and rather purchased the bus in the year 2015, when notification dated 09.03.2010, withdrawing the earlier notification dated 02.03.2009, was in operation. This petition is clearly misconceived and dismissed accordingly. 5. Though this case should have been a fit case where heavy costs ought to have been imposed upon the petitioner, but we refrain from doing so with a clear warning to the petitioner not to indulge in such kind of mis-adventure in future. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) May 07, 2025 Judge (VH)