BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) BUS No. R. J. T. 995 was taken in possession by the Inspector, Flying Squad Transport Department, Jodhpur on 15-9-82 for the reasons that : - (i) There was no registration certificate; (ii) There was no fitness certificate; (iii) The vehicle was not insured; (iv) Permit of the vehicle was not produced ; (v) There was no tax token for the current quarter and no receipt for payment was filed. (iv) For a sufficient period tax was due.
(2.) AN application was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur by the petitioner with the prayer that as the petitioner with the prayer that as the vehicle in question had been purchased by the petitioner Institution from Ghewar Chand, the registered owner, on 7-7-78, it may be returned to the Institution. Exemption from payment of tax was claimed. The learned Magistrate in view of the facts that Ghewar Chand was the registered owner and tax was due and other relevant documents were not produced, disallowed the application. The learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur rejected the revision petition filed on behalf of the Institution on 17-1-83. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner has now invoked the inherent powers of this Court by filing a petition under sec. 482 Cr. P. C. Notice was given to the non-petitioners; State of Rajasthan and Regional Transport Officer cum Taxation Officer (M. P.), Jodhpur at the admission stage and Mr. Udawat put in appearance on their behalf. The argument of Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner is that, by virtue of Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951 only half tax recoverable in connection with Motor Vehicles used for the conveyance of the pupils to and from the School. Mr. Maheshwari contended that since 7-7-78 the Institution has become owner of the vehicle as the same has been purchased from Ghewar Chand, and, therefore, no tax is leviable on an educational institution. In the alternative Mr. Maheshwari contended that even seeming for the sake of arguments Ghewar Chand to be the registered owner, still as provided in Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1981 only half tax is leviable on Motor Vehicles used for the conveyance of the pupils to and from the school. Mr. Udawat controverted those contentions and submitted that Ghewar Chand continues to be the registered owner and petitioner Institution no-where comes in the picture for the entrustment of the vehicle seized for the reasons enumerated in the report by the Inspector. The learned Magistrate in my opinion has committed an error in expecting the petitioner to file the papers concerning the clearance of the tax and also in view of the important documents concerning the vehicle not being there. For the same reasons the learned Sessions Judge has also committed no error in rejecting the revision petition. So long the petitioner does not become registered owner, Mr. Ghewar Chand's liability does not come to an end, and, therefore, unless the matter is settled, the orders passed by the two courts below cannot be said to be a use of the process of the Court, so as to call for any interference by this Court under section 482 Cr. P. C. The petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. .;