( 1 ) ). BY this petition under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenge, at the instance of the appellant-original petitioner, is against the order passed in Tax Appeal No. 17 of 1998 by the Director of Transport, Gujarat state which came to be confirmed in. Special Civil Application No. 9282 of 1998, by the Learned single Judge on 31-8-2000, on the main premise that, the appellant cannot be fastened with liability for payment of arrears of Motor vehicles Tax as he had sold the vehicle.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the merits of this appeal and challenge against it, a few relevant material facts may be highlighted, here as under :- 1. The appellant-original petitioner is doing a business of Travel Agent, at anand. The petitioner is the owner of some luxury buses. 2. Out of them, one luxury bus bearing No. GTG-4444 had already been sold to the respondent No. 3, one Mr. D. N. Patel, as per the case of the original petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner is not liable for the payment of arrears of tax in respect of the said vehicle. 3. The said vehicle was also transferred by the respondent No. 3 Mr. D. N. Patel to respondent No. 4 one Mr. R. N. Patel. 4. The respondent No. 2 - R. T. O. issued a notice of recovery of arrears of tax under Sec. 3, as an arrear of land revenue, under Secs. 12, 14 and 18 dated 18-6-1998, whereby, the petitioner was directed to show cause, as to why an amount of Rs. 2,03,125/- inclusive of penalty be not recovered from him. The petitioner had challenged the same by filing tax Appeal No. 17 of 1998, before the Director of Transport under Sec. 14 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the B. M. V. Tax Act, 1958 ). 5. The said appeal came to be rejected by holding the amount of arrears of vehicle tax mentioned in the notice with penalty, the original petitioner is liable to pay. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner challenged the same by filing S. C. A. No. 9282 of 1998 by invoking the provisions of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India which came to be rejected by the Learned single Judge, on 31-8-2000, and hence this appeal against that order of the learned single Judge by invoking the aid of the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

( 3 ) AT the admission stage, we have heard the learned counsel of the appellant- original petitioner, at marathon length. We have, dispassionately, examined the impugned judgment and order of the learned single Judge, the Appellate Authority and the entire records. On behalf of the appellant-original petitioner, it was contended that the liability for arrears of tax in respect of the said bus is wrongly fastened on him since the said vehicle was already transferred. This contention in our opinion is rightly not accepted by the Appellate Authority and by the learned single Judge.

( 4 ) WE have found from the record that after giving a notice of transfer of vehicle by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 under Sec. 31 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939, and under Sec. 50, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent No. 2 concerned R. T. O. to complete the application for transfer as the same was not in consonance with the provisions of Sec. 50 of the Motor vehicles Act, read with, the prescribed Form 29 and 30. In that, it was pointed out by the respondent No. 2 that following 3 material requirements were not satisfied. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to complete the application for transfer (1) to submit the registration book in respect of the said vehicle, (2) to submit the insurance certificate in the name of the transferee, (3) to submit a prescribed proforma duly signed by the hire-purchase party - financier, as regards cancelling endorsement made in the hire-purchase agreement in respect of the said vehicle. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 were called upon to comply the aforesaid defects for transferring the said vehicle through their A