PHOOSA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed for releasing the bus No. RNF 1071 and for issuing directions to the respondents not to take any coersive measures for recovery of the tax as demanded by notice dated 6-11-2000 from the petitioner.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Shri Girdharilal was holding a permanent State Carriage Permit on the route Loonkaransar to Binjrawali and the petitioner purchased the said bus from him. The same stood transferred in the name of the petitioner. When the bus was being plied, it was seized by the authorities in exercise of the powers under S.207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') on the grounds that the vehicle was not having tax token; Special Road Tax has not been paid; neither having permit nor the fitness certificate, nor registration certificate, nor insurance policy certificate, nor certificate from the Pollution Control Board. Moreso, it had not cleared the tax. Moreso, there is a demand of tax to the tune of Rs. 31,136/- and 24,530/- from the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Shri B.L. Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has raised large number of issues including the power and competence of the respondent No.2 to seize the vehicle and further that the notices of demand are void ab initio. On the contrary, Shri Vineet Kothari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, raised the preliminary objections that the impugned demand notices had been made on 6-11-2000 by the competent authority under the provisions of S-13-B of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (for short 'the Act, 1951') and the vehicle has been seized under the provisions of the S.207 of the Act on 27-11-2000. It is not permissible for the petitioner to mix up all the issues and claim relief in the petition. Moreso, seizure memo contains large number of deficiencies with the vehicle. It did not have even the registration certificate or certificate of fitness. In addition to the demand of tax etc., and it is not the petitioner's case that the vehicle has been seized only for non-payment of tax. Unless the vehicle is fit and road-worthy, it cannot be permitted to be piled on the road. The issues involved here are question of facts which cannot be determined in the writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the statute itself provides for remedy of assessment, its appeal and its revision and authorises the District Transport Officer to relealse the vehicle. Therefore, in these circumstances, the writ petition should not be entertained by this Court.