IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5966/2001 Dharam Pal Vs. D.T.O. Jhunjhunu Date of order : 06.05.2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Samit Bishnoi on behalf of Mr. Bharat Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr. K. Verma, for respondent. BY THE COURT Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the demand notices dated 02.01.1999 (Annexure- 2 and 3) levied for special road tax and penalty against the petitioner in respect of permit No. 3280 for 3 years for the route Khetri Nagar to Sultana via Singhana. (3). Briefly stated the facts of the writ petition are that the permit (Annexure/1) was granted in favour of the petitioner of bus No. RNP-87, Model 1984 having capacity of 37 passenger for the route Khetri Nagar to Sultana via Singhana with the stipulation that in case the vehicle is not registered in the name of the petitioner by 21.8.1996, then the permit will be automatically cancelled. (4). It is stated in the writ petition that the vehicle could not be transferred in the name of the petitioner upto 21.8.1996, therefore, the permit automatically cancelled and the petitioner did not ply the vehicle for a single day, therefore, the demand of special road tax and penalty is being restricted. (5). No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent. - 2 - (6). Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that since the permit was cancelled for want of vehicle could not be transferred in his name within the stipulated time, therefore, he could not ply the vehicle. But, still the respondent served a demand notices dated 2.1.1999 (Annexures- 2 and 3) raising a tax recovery of Rs. 64,130/- and 8,620/-. (7). Mr. K.Verma submits that the impugned orders dated 2.1.1999 (Annexures-2 and 3) have been passed as per the permit dated 08th of July 1996 keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has plied the vehicle during the aforesaid period. (8). I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered the submissions of the parties. (9). Having considered the impugned orders and the submissions of Mr. K. Verma, I am of the view that there is nothing on record that the vehicle was registered upto 21.8.1996 in the name of the petitioner and the permit came into force and further petitioner has plied the vehicle on the said route. The vehicle was not plied for the route Khetri Nagar to Sultana via Singhana, therefore, the District Transport Officer, Jhunjhunu has committed an error to pass a demand notices dated 2.1.1999 (Annexures-2 and 3) of raising a tax recovery of Rs. 64,130/- and 8,620/- as a penalty for the period April, 1997 to October 1998 and November 1998 to January 1999. The submissions of the counsel for the petitioner has force and the submissions of the counsel for the - 3 - respondent has no force. (10). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the demand notice dated 2.1.1999 (Annexuure-2) and penalty notice dated 2.1.1999(Annexure-3) are quashed and set aside. (PREM SHANKAR ASOPA),J. N.Gandhi H/5