STATE Vs. PRAKASH CHAND KABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the similar orders of learned Single Judge dated 24. 07. 2002. As in all these appeals common issue is involved for the consideration of this Bench, we have heard all these appeals and decide them by this common order.

(2.) THE short controversy involved in these appeals is whether the Commissioner has exercised his revisional power, under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of the Section 14 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1951'), in accordance with law?

(3.) MR. B. L. Maheshwari, Counsel for these private parties- respondents submits that proviso to Sub-section (2) of the Section 14 of the Act, 1951 speaks about the revision of the any order. Revision of order can be on petition of aggrieved person or on his own motion of Commissioner. He further submits that in case of suo motu revision, first he should examine record himself and not on a petition by the Taxation Officer, if without application of mind a notice has been issued, that cannot be a suo motu revision under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of the Section 14 of the Act of 1951. He further submits that even otherwise the power of suo motu revision can be exercised only within 90 days from the date of order and here the petition for revision of the orders of the Taxation Officer has been made after seven years from the date of original orders passed by the Taxation Officer. On that count also there was no justification to interfere by the Commissioner in the orders passed by Taxation Officer in the years 1993 & 1994 i. e. after seven years. No explanation has been given for such inordinate delay.