1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4901/2000. Sultan Singh Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan And Ors. Date of Order : 20/5/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.K. Ajmera, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Srivastava, Deputy Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT:- The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the impugned-order dated 11/9/2000 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Alwar (for short, “RTA Alwar”) and the demand notices dated 12/3/1996, 7/2/1997 and 16/6/1997. 2) In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to only challenge the legality of the impugned-order dated 11/9/2000 whereby, RTA Alwar dismissed three similar appeals filed against different assessment orders of the assessing authority dated 11/3/1996, 7/9/1997 and 16/6/1997 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority i.e. RTA Alwar by the impugned-order dated 11/9/2000 without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner inasmuch as, date of hearing was not notified to the petitioner. Further, the appellate authority failed to take into consideration the letter dated 13/1/1998 2 written by the District Transport Officer to the Chief Accounts Officer, District Transport Office, Rajasthan, Jaipur clarifying the fact that the second Permit No.1759 dated 30/11/1992 issued in regard to the same vehicle was issued only upon taking the Permit No.1348 dated 31/12/1990 as cancelled and, therefore, double taxation for the period w.e.f. 1/1/1991 to 31/3/1993 was not correct. It was further stated in the said letter that Permit No.1759 was issued subject to the condition that petitioner shall update the model of the vehicle on 31/3/1993 but upon his failure to do so, the vehicle in question was not allowed to be applied further. It was also clarified that temporary Permit No.1759 for the period from 18/8/1993 to 15/12/1993 was issued to the petitioner on the said vehicle only because earlier permit to him was treated as cancelled, therefore, no tax would be levied beyond 31/3/1993. 4) In so far as earlier permit which was cancelled is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if the appellant was not represented before the learned Appellate Authority, it was required to examine the clarifications given by District Transport Authority, Alwar in the aforesaid letter. 5) Shri Sanjay Srivastava, learned Deputy Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that that petitioner was bound to satisfy the authorities that the vehicle was not plied after 31/12/1990 on the strength of earlier permit and 3 since the petitioner did not move an application as required by Section 25(b) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxations Act, this aspersion can not be caste on the appellate authority. 6) Upon consideration of the aforesaid arguments and perusal of the documents referred to supra, I find that even if what is contended by the Deputy Government Counsel is accepted, in my view, the Appellate Authority was bound to examine the records of the case especially, the two clarifications referred to above which had an important bearing on the merits of the case. 7) After having gone through the matter on merits in the light of the arguments of the parties on the basis of materials available on record, I am of the considered view that matter requires re- consideration and re-adjudication by the Appellate Authority in the light of the observations made by this Court hereinabove. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order of the Appellate Authority dated 11/9/2000 (Ann.1) is quashed and set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Regional Transport Authority, Alwar for its decision afresh in accordance with law with a direction that the RTA Alwar while adjudicating the matter afresh, shall adhere to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act with regard to pre-deposit. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. Bharti