The petitioner is said to be a partnership firm. The petitioner is said to have financed the purchase of a bus by the respondent no.3 and the vehicle is said to have been hypothecated to secure the loan. The said transaction was said to have been duly endorsed in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle by the competent authorities. It transpires that there was a hypothecation created in favour of the fourth respondent as well, in respect of the same vehicle.

It transpires that there was a default in repayment of the loan, on account of which the petitioner is said to have seized the vehicle as on 27.7.1998. Pursuant to which, the petitioner is said to have intimated the authorities that the vehicle was not intended to be used on the road during its seizure by the petitioner, in Form-30, dated 30.7.1998.

It further transpires that the owner of the vehicle had thereafter repaid the entire loan amount and had taken possession of the vehicle. This is said to have been intimated to the transport authorities as on 3.1.2000.

It is stated that two years thereafter, the petitioner is said to have been served with an order dated, 12.5.2003, passed by the Taxation authority terminating