KEJRIWAL, J. - (1.) THE Gram Panchayat, Parwan, gave theka of 'bajri Kar' and Rasta Durusti Kar'. THE petitioner was given contract in auction in the year 1991, as his bid was highest. For the year 1992-93, again the auction proceedings took place and contract of Nake Parwan, was given to Mangal Singh whereas contract of Chungi No. 2 (Keria) was given to Om Prakash Sharma and other persons.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the allegations that under Rule 113 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat Rules), no vehicle tax can be levied by a Panchayat, in respect of the vehicle. THE argument of the counsel for he petitioner is that the Panchayat is charging vehicle tax, which he can not charge under the Motor Vehicles Act and also under Rule 113 of the Panchayat Rules. In support of his arguments, he also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court, reported in 1989 W. L. N. (U. C.) 36 (1 ). He prayed that the Gram Panchayat, Parwan, and the respondent be restrained from collecting vehicle tax from the petitioner and other persons. The respondent No. 3, the Gram Panchayat, Parwan, filed written statement, mentioning therein that the Panchayat has not been charging any vehicle tax but has been charging Bajri Kar and Rasta Durusti Kar, for which it use to auction the theka and the contractor has been collecting the said tax on the rates prescribed by the Panchayat. This tax has been recovered for maintaining the road, which is used by the vehicles when they go to collect bajri in Mahi River. This tax is required to maintain the roads, and it is not the vehicle tax. The Panchayat is competent to charge the same. It was further alleged that in previous years, the petitioner was appointed Contractor for collecting the said tax but he never raised any objection. As in the present year, the contract was auctioned in the name of Mangal Singh and Om Prakash, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with ulterior motive. The conduct of the petitioner is such which disentitle him any relief. Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 the contractors, also supported the reply filed by the Gram Panchayat. He also argued that they are not charging any vehicle tax but are charging only Rasta Durusti Kar as they were appointed contractors for the same by the Panchayat. Their bid was highest. After considering the arguments of the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the respondents are not charging any vehicle tax but Rasta Durusti tax which is necessary for maintaining the road. Under these circumstances, it can not be said that the respondents are charging any vehicle tax. Further more, the petitioner himself was appointed as a contractor in the year 1991, and at that time he did not make any allegations and he himself was paying the same tax, which is now being charged by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. In my view the conduct of the petitioner is such which disentitles him for filing the present writ petition. On both the grounds, I dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner. .;