LAL CHAND GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to order dated 11.8.2010 with a further prayer that Respondents be restrained to initiate action pursuant to aforesaid order.

(2.) It is a case where a vehicle bearing No. RJ-17-U-0275 was found involved and seized for an offence under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Petitioner was found to be registered owner of the said vehicle, thus a letter was issued by Respondent - Department on 11.8.2010 requesting Vigilance Cell of the Excise Department for filing challan against Petitioner. On receipt of copy of aforesaid letter, Petitioner sent a reply stating that vehicle has already been sold to one Shri Ashish Harjani on consideration. Thus, has no where related to the said vehicle now. After filing reply, when nothing come out either in favour of Petitioner or against him, this writ petition has been filed to challenge letter dated 11.8.2010.

(3.) Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that letter dated 11.8.2010 has been issued in ignorance of the definition of 'owner' as provided under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988'). According to him, definition of 'owner' provides transfer of vehicle under an agreement apart from agreement for hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation. Since Petitioner executed an agreement to sale, he is not falling in the definition of 'owner'. Ignoring aforesaid, impugned letter has been issued.