Honble KOKJE, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2). The appellant M/s. Shrinath Travel Agency claims to be a Tourist Transport Operator. It has several tourist permits and it owns several vehicles which are plied in the State of Rajasthan. In the petition before the learned Single Judge the contention of the appellant-petitioner was that the respondents were unnecessarily harassing the appellant petitioner by seizing the vehicles for breach of Rule 82 to 85-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. According to the appellant it is covered by the Motor Vehicles (All India Permit for Tourist Transport Operators) Rules, 1993 being covered in the definition of Tourist Transport Operator contained in Sec. 2(g) of the Act. It is contended further on behalf of the appellant that under Sub-rule 4 of rule 1 of the aforesaid rules, the conditions prescribed in Rules 82 to 85-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 shall not apply to the permits granted under the scheme. The complaint is that despite this position, the respondents are seizing the vehicles of the appellant and proceeding against him for breach of Rules 82 to 85 -A of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. The lea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document