CHAUHAN, J. - (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 Sec. 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') on the grounds that the vehicle was not having tax taken; Spe- cial Road Tax has not been paid; neither not 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/- & 24,530/- from the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 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 is 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 Section 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 Section 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 plied 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 authorise the District Transport Officer to release the vehicle. Therefore, in these circumstances, the writ petition should not be entertained by this Court. A constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in G. Veerappa Pillai vs. Raman & Raman Ltd. (1), held that as the Motor Vehicles Act is a self contained code and itself provides for appealable/revisable forum, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in matters relating to its provision. Similar view has been reiterated in Assistant Collector of Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Ltd. (2), R. Kishore Biswas vs. State of Tripura (3), and Shivgovinda Anna Patil vs. State of Maharashtra (4). In C.A. Ibraham vs. I.T.O. (5) and H.B. Gandhi vs. M/s Gopinath & Sons (6), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction.
(3.) ANOTHER Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in K.S. Venkataraman & Co. vs. State of Madras (7), considered the Privy Council judgment in Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. vs. Governor General in Council (8), and held that the writ court can entertain the petition provided the order is alleged to be without jurisdiction or has been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, or the provisions of the Act/Rules is under challenge. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa & Anr. (9), the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to extend the ratio of its earlier judgment in State of U.P. vs. Mohammed Noor, (10), wherein the Court had held that prerogative writ can be issued to correct the error of the Court or Tribunal below even if an appeal is provided under the statute under certain circumstances, i.e. the order is without jurisdiction, or principles of natural justice have not been followed, and held that in case of assessment under the Taxing Statute, the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. (supra) would be applicable for the reason that "the use of the machinery provided by the Act, not the result of that use, is the test." While deciding the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance on large number of judgments, particularly New Water Works Co. vs. Hawkes Ford (11), Neville vs. London Express Newspapers Ltd. (12), and Attorney General of Trinidad & Taboco vs. Gordon Grant & Co. (13) and Secretary of State vs. Mask & Co. (14), wherein it had consistently been emphasised that the remedy provided by the statute must be followed and writ should not generally be entertained unless the statutory remedies are exhausted. ;