Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-By way of filing present misc. petition under Section 482, CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 011.2005 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Application No. 217/2005 as well as the order dated 111.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No. 184/2005 whereby the order passed by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh dated 011.2005 was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners bus bearing No. RJ-14-1P-6500 was seized by the Transport Department on the ground that there were dues of road tax of Rs. 11,535/-. Upon the seizure, an application under Section 457, CrPC, was filed by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle in question but the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh vide order dated 011.2005 rejected the application on the ground that there is outstanding of Rs. 11,535/-of road tax, therefore, vehicle cannot be released. Learned revisional Court vide order dated 111.2005 has also upheld the order passed by the learned trial Court.

3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no tax due when the vehicle was seized. During the pendency of the case, he has also filed the original copy of the certificate given by the District Transport Officer (Pessenger Vehicle -II), Jagatpura, Jaipur to the effect that there is no outstanding upto November, 2005. It is contended that the vehicle is registered with the District Transport Officer, Jaipur, therefore, when there is no outstanding tax as per the certificate, therefore, the District Transport Officer, Hanumangarh has illegally seized the vehicle.

Upto filing of the certificate issue by the District Transport Officer, Jaipur, this Court vide order dated 10.01.2006 directed the petitioner to implead the District Transport Officer, Hanumangarh as party respondent in the matter and notice was issued to him and he was directed to remain present before this Court.

4. Mr. S.N. Tiwari, learned Public Prosecutor while drawing the attention of this Court towards the affidavit filed by one Shri Ajay Purohit, M.V.S.I., District Transport Officr, Hanumangarh contended that with an object of promoting the tourism in Rajasthan and providing more facilities to the tourists, the contract carriages, registered in Rajasthan and plying under tourist permit issued under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, have been given a 50% concession of Special Road Tax levied under Section 4-B vide notification No. F6(179) Pari./Tax/HQ/95/11 as amended from time to time, according to the seating capacity and type of carriage. It is further contended that this concession to the extent of 50% of the original tax amount has been made available upon fulfillment of certain conditions. It is further contended by learned Public Prosecutor that one of the condition is that All India Tourist Permit enjoying this concession in tax shall at the time of journey will operate air-conditioner/heater but in the event of non-functioning of air-conditioner/heater at the time of checking while carrying passengers the owner shall not be entitled for this concession in that particular month of checking. the petitioner was allowed concession in the said scheme and it has paid Rs. 11,535/-as special tax which is 50% of the total tax Rs. 23,070/-. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that at the time of checking, air-conditioner as well as heater was not functioning, therefore, the vehicle was seized because concession was only allowed upon the condition that the carriage will provide the facility of air-conditioner/heater to the passengers.

5. I have perused the panchnama so prepared at the time of seizure. It is true that such contravention is mentioned in the panchnama but in the panchnama, it is nowhere stated that before seizing of the vehicle, the petitioner was asked to deposit such amount so also there was no notice to the petitioner