Slnghal, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed against the action of the District Transport Officer, Nagaur in seizing the vehicle of the petitioner having No. RNN 5763 on 10. 12. 1993.
(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither any notice for framing the assessment was issued nor the assessment order and the demand notice in pursuance thereof was served upon the petitioner. IT has also been submitted that this Court in the case of Bhojmal vs. District Transport Officer, Tonk (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 238 of 1993) decided on 10. 11. 1993 has observed as under : - "before parting with, I would like to express my concern about the manner in which the assessment orders are passed by the District Transport Officers. IT has come to my knowledge while dealing such cases, that orders of assessment are passed by the Taxation Officers in a cursory manner, without dealing with the objections/submissions raised before them. Such orders normally, do not indicate as to whether any notice was given to the assessee and whether the assessee or his any representative was given an opportunity of hearing or not. The Taxation Officers should remember that passing of assessment orders is a quasi-judicial function and they are expected to follow the principles of natural justice. The assessment order should contain necessary facts and various objections/submissions made by the assessee. Then, such objections should be decided by speaking order. If the assessment orders are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without determining the objections raised before the Taxation Officers it gives rise to further litigation. The Transport Commissioner is, therefore, directed to issue proper guidelines to all the Taxation Officers, in the light of the observations made in the writ petition. " In the case of Ravindra Kumar vs. State of Raj. and Anr. , (S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1053/93) decided on 12. 1. 1994 it has been observed that in case of seizure of the motor vehicles some mechanism must be thought of that the vehicles are not reduced to scraps while lying under the open sky and without any care at the various Police Stations. It does not cause loss to the individuals only, may be the owners or the hire purchasers or for that power of attorney holders, but permitting the serviceable vehicle lying un-used to nobody cares is a national loss of property. " I have considered over the matter. In the present case the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1951 and the rules framed thereunder a sufficient machinery has been provided for the procedure with regard to assessment, appeal and seizure of the vehicle. It is evident that there cannot be any seizure without there being an assessment order. It also requires that before a seizure is being effected service of assessment order and demand notice must be made on the petitioner. The act of seizure should not be proceeded with by the Taxation authorities in a light hearted manner at their whims and only to fulfil their targets. Compliance of law for the officers is a must and if any officer fails to act in accordance with law he is liable for disciplinary proceedings for the misconduct committed by him by acting contrary to the provisions of the Act and the rules. For the purpose of framing the assessment it is necessary that the notice must be served on the vehicle owner or the person authorised by him. In accordance with the rules if the service is effected then the assessment has to be framed considering all the objections which are raised by such person so that the higher Court may come to the conclusion that there is an effective application of mind on the basis of which it could be considered that the order passed is in accordance with law. If the objection is not effectively considered or is not dealt with then such orders are liable to be set aside only for that reason. The tax which is due is the liability of every vehicle owner to make the payment and if it is not paid then it is the duty of the Transport Officer to realise and recovery could be made only of the amount which is lawfully due as enshrined under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. In the present case since the dispute has been raised that the petitioner was not served with the notice for assessment nor with the copy of the assessment order, it is not necessary to go into the various details and the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall move the application under Rule 38 for rectification of the order on the basis of which the demand is said to be realised by seizure of the vehicle. If there is no order then the matter become more grave and the respondents are even entitled for damages against the vehicles who has taken such an illegal action. If there is no order of assessment then no recovery can be made and if no recovery can be made then there cannot be any attachment of the vehicle and in such a case the vehicle has to be released on the application being considered by the respondents. It is also directed that the respondents shall dispose of the application submitted by the petitioner within a period of 10 days from the date of submission of the application with the copy of this order and if the notice issued or not issued and/or served on the petitioner then he would be entitled to get the order rectified on that ground. If the notice has been served but the assessment has not been made in that case no recovery can be made. If the assessment has been made without issue of notice then the order would be liable to be rectified under rule 38 by the respondents. The complete details duly supported by an affidavit would be submitted by the petitioner to the respondents within 5 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the said application will be disposed of within a period of 15 days after the submission of the details.
(3.) THE writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the directions given above. .;