HARDAYAL CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) A Tata Sumo vehicle RJ-01-C-4075, carrying some passengers in it, seized by the Distt. Transport Officer, Shahjahapur, on 15.5.99. The present applicant, claiming himself to be the owner of the same vehicle, applied for the release of the same on his supurdagi. The learned Magistrate, vide his impugned order dated 19.5.99, declined to entrust the supurdagi of the said vehicle to the applicant on the ground that the vehicle was being used as a transport vehicles, that the Road Tax, Special Road Tax, permit tax and some other taxes were due against the said vehicle. It was further observed that in view of the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1988. He had no jurisdiction to order the vehicle's release, until and unless the aforesaid taxes were paid.

(3.) The learned counsel submitted that the learned Magistrate did not hold any inquiry into the question whether the vehicle was being used as a transport vehicle and that any tax, as mentioned in his order, was due against it. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in order to appreciate the controversy in the present petition it is necessary that a clear finding of the learned Magistrate on the above mentioned points be heard from him.