Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
World Vision India Regi. Society vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:34708-Db) on 6 August, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:34708-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2998/2014
World Vision India (Registered Society) having its registered
office at No.16, VOC Main Road, Kodambkkan Chennai and local
office at Plot no.45, Indira Colony, Jaisalmer through authorized
signatory Mr. Satyajit Patro, Program Officer of Marudhara ADP.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary-cum-
Commissioner of Transport, Department of Transport, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. Regional Transport Officer cum Appellate Authority, Jodhpur.
3. District Transport Officer, Jaisalmer (Registering authority cum
Taxation Officer).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.L. Tiwari.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Judgment / Order
06/08/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 19.03.2012 and the demand notice of even date.
3. Briefly noted, the facts in the present writ petition are that
the petitioner, being a registered Society under the provisions of
Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred
to as 'The Act of 1975') is engaged in community development
work, particularly in providing services towards education, health,
economic development, water and sanitation and other relief
works in different parts of the country. In order to undertake
[2025:RJ-JD:34708-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-2998/2014]
welfare activities in Jaisalmer District of Rajasthan, a vehicle
having sitting capacity of 10 passengers was purchased by the
petitioner-Society. The registration of the said vehicle was also got
done with the transport department in the State of Rajasthan. The
vehicle was registered as 'Non-Transport Vehicle' with registration
No.RJ15-C-482, after deposition of tax as per law. The vehicle was
being used exclusively for philanthropic purposes. The
respondents department thereafter vide order dated 19.03.2012,
unilaterally changed the category of the vehicle of the petitioner-
Society and ultimately, the same was treated as a 'Private Service
Vehicle' and thereafter, a notice for demand of tax was issued on
even date. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that
the petitioner is a charitable institution and is not engaged in any
trade or business. He further submits that at the time of
registration of the vehicle, the petitioner-Society has submitted all
the requisite documents to establish the fact that the petitioner-
Society is undertaking only philanthropic activities in the State of
Rajasthan and does not use the vehicle for any trade or business.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
registration of the vehicle was done by the respondents in the
category of 'Non-Transport Vehicle' (category 'C') after the
petitioner-Society submitted the entire documents. He also
submits that the tax amenable to the same category was
deposited by the petitioner-Society at the time of registration of
the vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents,
without appreciating the correct facts and without giving any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Society, has changed the
[2025:RJ-JD:34708-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-2998/2014]
category of the vehicle from 'Non-Transport Vehicle' (Private
Vehicle) to 'Transport Vehicle' (Private Service Vehicle). He further
submits that the registration number of the vehicle has also been
changed on two occasions. He, therefore, prays that the writ
petition may be allowed and the order dated 19.03.2012 as well
as the demand notice of even date may be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents submits that the action of the respondents is just and
proper. He further submits that since the vehicle was being used
by the petitioner-Society for carrying passengers in the local area
for propagating its activities, therefore, the same has rightly been
converted into 'Private Service Vehicle'. Learned AAG also submits
that after due application of mind and taking into consideration
the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent
authorities changed the category of the vehicle of the petitioner-
Society. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted
by this Court and prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.
7. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and
gone through the relevant record of the case.
8. From the memorandum of association produced before this
Court, it is evident that the petitioner-Society is engaged in
charitable and philanthropic activities and not in any trade or
business, particularly with regard to the use of the vehicle in
question in Jaisalmer District. The petitioner, at the time of
registration of vehicle, has submitted all the requisite documents,
which fortifies the fact that the vehicle is used only for charitable
purposes in the District Jaisalmer and after taking into
consideration those relevant documents, the vehicle of the
[2025:RJ-JD:34708-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-2998/2014]
petitioner was categorized as 'Private Vehicle'. The respondents
unilaterally changed the category of the vehicle to 'Private Service
Vehicle' and allotted different numbers without giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Society.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the petitioner-
Society is not carrying any activities of trade and business through
the vehicle in question, therefore, to place the vehicle of the
petitioner-Society in the category of 'Private Service Vehicle', is
erroneous. As per the statutory definition provided under Section
2(33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a 'Private Service Vehicle' is
a vehicle having a carrying capacity of more than six persons
excluding the driver and it is ordinarily be used by the owner for
the purposes of trade and business. Since the petitioner's vehicle
is not used for any trade and business, therefore, it cannot be
categorized into the 'Private Service Vehicle'. Even otherwise, we
feel that the category of the vehicle has been changed without
giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Society,
therefore, the action of the respondents is in violation of the
principles of natural justice.
10. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ
petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The order
dated 19.03.2012 and the demand notice of even date are
quashed and set-aside.
11. However, the respondents will be at liberty to take
appropriate action for placing the petitioner's vehicle in the
appropriate category after giving reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner-Society.
[2025:RJ-JD:34708-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-2998/2014]
12. The stay petition as well as all other pending misc.
applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
15-Shahenshah/sunils/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
