Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jai Arora And Anr vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:34886-Db) on 6 August, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:34886-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1800/2005
1. Jai Arora son of Shri Subhash Chandra Arora aged 23 years
resident of Village Billar Tehsil Khajuwala District Bikaner.
2. Pratapsingh s/o Mukhasingh aged 30 years Jat Sikh r/o village
Billar Teh.Khajuwala Dist. Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Transport Commissioner, Govt.of
Raj., Jaipur.
2. District Transport Officer, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.K. Rathi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.SS Rathore, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
06/08/2025
BY THE COURT (PER ANUROOP SINGHI, J.)
1. By way of this writ petition, challenge has been made to the
impugned Panchnama dated 05.01.2005 and the seizure memo
dated 05.01.2005 vide which the vehicle of the petitioners bearing
registration no. RJ07 P 3444 has been seized by the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
vehicle of the petitioners has been seized in an illegal manner and
in sheer violation of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles
Taxation Rules, 1951 (herein after referred to as 'the Rules of
1951') which deals with verification of declaration and
determination of tax and mandatorily requires the competent
officer to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the owner
[2025:RJ-JD:34886-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-1800/2005]
by issuing a notice. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that no such proceedings have been carried out and in an arbitrary
manner, the vehicle of the petitioners has been seized. Learned
counsel further submitted that in absence of compliance of the
mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules of
1951, the action taken and consequential orders passed by the
respondents are illegal and cannot be sustained and hence, it was
prayed that the panchnama and seizure memo, both dated
05.01.2005 be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon the
judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Rashid Ahmed
vs. D.T.O. Nagaur ; 1994(1) WLN 318.
3. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, it was submitted
that the proceedings have been rightly carried out by following
due process of law and the vehicle has been validly seized and
thus, it was submitted that the writ petition is bereft of merits and
deserves to be dismissed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
5. It is not in dispute that Rule 8 of the Rules of 1951 lays down
the procedure to be followed by the competent authority for
verification of declaration and determination of tax. The said Rule
in unequivocal terms requires the competent authority to issue a
notice and grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the owner of
the vehicle.
In the present case, the respondents have failed to
demonstrate the compliance of the procedure laid down in Rule 8
of the Rules of 1951 and thus, the action taken by them in
violation of the said Rule cannot be sustained. It is a settled law
[2025:RJ-JD:34886-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-1800/2005]
that if the law provides for a thing to be done in a particular
manner then it has to be done in that manner or not at all. This
Court in the case of Rashid Ahmed (supra) while dealing with the
provisions of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 and
the Rules framed thereunder, has held that there cannot be any
seizure without there being an assessment order and that, before
a seizure is effected, service of assessment order and demand
notice must be made upon the petitioners.
6. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that
the impugned Panchnama and the seizure memo, both dated
05.01.2005 passed by the District Transport Officer, Bikaner
cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. However, the
respondents would be at liberty to initiate the proceedings against
the petitioners, if so advised, in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
8. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
1-S.Phophaliya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
