PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) ON a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases were posted before us for disposal. ( 2 ) AS common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. ( 3 ) MOHAMED Hayath, a resident of palamner Town, Chittoor District andhra Pradesh, petitioner No. 2 in writ Petition No. 18958 of 1983 was the registered owner of a passenger transport Motor Vehicle classified as 'tourist vehicle' bearing registration no. A A C 5270 registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, which was included in an all India Tourist permit issued in his favour by the State, Transport authority of Andhra Pradesh under s. 63 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No. 4 of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as the MV. Act ). Some time in October, 1983 or before petitioner No. 2 obtained the release of the said vehicle from the said permit and has sold the same to Syed Rafiq ahmed of Bangalore, Petitioner no. 1 and on 7-10-1983 the competent officer has also effected the Transfer of Ownership of the said vehicle to the name of the latter in the certificate of registration ( 4 ) ON 7-10-1983 petitioner No. 1 has paid a sum of Rs. 3024 being the tax due on the vehicle to the State of karnataka for the period from 7-10-1983 to 31-10-1983 and was using the same in the State of Karnataka on the strength of a special permit obtained by him under S. 63 (6) of the MV Act. ( 5 ) ON 24-10-1983 one B R Vijayakumar, an Inspector of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as IMV) attached to the Office of the Regional transport Officer, Bangalore, West hereinafter referred to as the RTO) intercepted the said vehicle at a place called Dasarahalli situated on the outskirts of Bangalore City, checked the same and issued a Check Report on the spot noticing various omissions and commissions in its operation, one of which was that the vehicle was plying without payment of taxes (Annexure-A ). Along with the said check report or immediately thereafter the IMV exercising the powers conferred on him by the Karnataka Motor Vehicles taxation Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under the said Act issued an order for seizing the said vehicle, seized the same and has detained it thereafter. The order of seizure made by the IMV reads thus :"whereas the Tax due under the karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation act, 1957 has not been paid for the, period from. . . . . No proof for having paid the tax respect of the motor Vehicle bearing registration mark A A C 5270. B. R. Vijayakumar, IMV. RTO (W) as an officer authorised under the said Act, hereby order the seizure of the aforesaid vehicle and detention of the same until the tax due on the vehicle is paid and proof evidencing the payment of tax due is produced". While the said vehicle was under seizure, the RTO has issued an endorsment bearing No. D S A IIAAC 5270 82-1983 dated 27-10-1983 (Annexure-C) to petitioner No. 1 calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs 73,440 being the arrears of tax on the said vehicle from 1-4-1981 to 30-9-1983, which reads thus: endorsement sub; Issue of Check reports in respect of M. V. NO. AAC 5270 and form No. 27. Ref: 1. C/r dt. 24-10-1983. 2. Your Application dated 24-10-1983 requesting to release the M. V. AAC 5270. The registered owner of the. M. V. AAC 5270 is hereby informed that there are 11 check reports. "pending in this Office, against above vehicle. On verification of check reports issued by the IMVS of this Office on 8-10-4982, 11-11-1982 31-10-1982, 27-11-1982 and 17-12-1982. it is evident that the MV AAC 5270 was regularly plying in the State of Karnataka between the two points, with A. I. Tourist Permit No. TVP 28[29 V. T. 21-5-1985 issued by the STA, Hyderabad. . Exemption of M. V. Tax granted, in respect of A1tp. has been withdrawn by Government of Karnataka vide Notification No. HD TMI 81 dated 31-5-1981. . Exemption of M. V. Tax granted, in respect of A1tp. has been withdrawn by Government of Karnataka vide Notification No. HD TMI 81 dated 31-5-1981. Hence, as per the available evidence based on the above mentioned c|rs, it is concluded that the above vehicle was in operation in the State of Karnataka during the currency of the permit, till the date of obtaining NOC from the RTO, Chittoor viz from 1-4-1981 to 30-9-1983. The tax due for this period amounts to Rs. 73,440 and becomes payable, by virtue of the disposal of, the writ petitions by the respective Courts. You are therefore requested to remit the amount due immediately and also produce all the valid documents of the vehicle together with the d. L. of the Driver to consider the release of the vehicle,"in this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution the petitioners have challenged the order of seizure issued by the IMV and the order of the RTO (Annexures B and C) and have sought for a mandamus to the respondents to forthwith release the said vehicle to them with compensation thereto at the rate of Rs. 500 per day. ( 6 ) V. K. Ravindran, resident of mamba Village, Cannanore District, kerala State, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18995 of 1983 is the registered owner of a passenger Transport Motor vehicle classified as a 'tourist vehicle' bearing registration No. K L N 5298 registered in the State of Kerala which was covered by an All India Tourist permit issued under S. 63 (7) of the mv Act by the State Transport authority, Kerala State. ( 7 ) ON 21-10-1983 an IMV attached to the Office of the RTO, Dharwad intercepted the said vehicle on P. B. Road near RTO's Office, checked the same and found various ommissions and commissions, one of which was that the taxes had not been paid to the state of Karnataka till 31-8-1983 and accordingly issued a check report in that behalf (Annexure-D ). Along with the Check report or thereafter the same IMV also issued an order of seizure of the said vehicle (Annexure-C), seized the same and has detained it thereafter. On the same day, the rto, Dharwad by his communication no. Along with the Check report or thereafter the same IMV also issued an order of seizure of the said vehicle (Annexure-C), seized the same and has detained it thereafter. On the same day, the rto, Dharwad by his communication no. DSA-I|kln 5298 |dwd|1983-84 (Annexure-E) has called upon the petitioner to pay the taxes due to the state of Karnataka on the aforesaid vehicle from 1-4-1981 to 30-11-1983 giving deductions to the amounts already paid by him thereto. As in the other case, Ravindran, petitioner in w. P. Np. 18995 of 1983 has challepged the order of seizure and the check report and has sought for a mandamus to return the said vehicle to him. ( 8 ) A. Basheer Ahmed, a resident of S. A. S. Nagar, Mohalli District of punjab State, petitioner in W. P. No. 19353 of 1983 is the owner of passenger transport Motor Vehicle bearing registration No. P N Z 130 classified as a 'tourist vehicle registered in the State of Punjab which was covered by an all India Tourist permit issued in his favour under S. 63 (7) of the MV Act by the State Transport Authority of punjab State. He had asserted that he has paid a sum of Rs 7344 being the taxes due on the said vehicle to the state of Karnataka for the period from 1-9-1983 to 30-11-1983. ( 9 ) ON 2-11-1983 an IMV attached to the Office of the RTO, Chitradurga intercepted the aforesaid vehicle when it was passing through Chitradurga at Chitradurga and has issued an order of seizure (Annexure-A) on the ground that taxes due on the said vehicle from January, 1983 to August, 1983 had not been, paid, seized and detained the same from that day. As in the other cases A. Basheer Ahmed, petitioner in W. P. No. 19353 of 1983 has also challenged the order of seizure made by the IMV and has sought for a mandamus to the respondents to forthwith return the said vehicle to him. As in the other cases A. Basheer Ahmed, petitioner in W. P. No. 19353 of 1983 has also challenged the order of seizure made by the IMV and has sought for a mandamus to the respondents to forthwith return the said vehicle to him. ( 10 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred on it Joy S. 16 of the Act, government by its Notification No. HD 90 TMT 72 dated 19-9-1972 granted absolute exemption from payment of taxes in the State of Karnataka on tourist Vehicles of other States, But, on a re-examination of the matter, government by its Notification No. HD 50 TMI 8, dated 31-3-1981 withdrew the said exemption on tourist vehicle from 1-4-1981. ( 11 ) PETITIONER No. 2 in W. P. No. 18958 of 1983, the other petitioners and virtually all other owners of (tourist vehicles' covered by All India permits of other States, challenged the later notificaton issued by Govt. either before this court or before the Hon'ble supreme Court, which had stayed its operation on the terms and conditions made in their favour, the result of which was that the petitioners became entitled to operate their vehicles in the State of Karnataka without payment of taxes, but subject to the other provisions of the Act and the Rules. On 8-7-1983 this Court dismissed the said Writ Petitions and upheld the validity of the said notification (J. S. Rajkumar v. State of Karnataka w. P. Nos. 7552 of 1982 and connected cases decided on 8-7-1983 ). On 12-8-1983 the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the writ petitions and special leave petitions filed before it and upheld the said notification which is since reported as B. A. Jayaram v. Union of India (AIR. 1983 S. C. 1005) inter alia observing thus: "this Scheme for the grant of All india permits', designed as it was to promote All India and inter-State tourist traffic soon fell into abuse at the hands of scheming transport operators. Within the scheme, itself lay the seeds for abuse. The scheme enabled the State Transport Authority of each State, to issue fifty All india permits, uniformly, irrespective of the size of the State, its resources, its accessibility, its communications, its facilities, the availability of transport Services and Operators in the state with the necessary expertise, experience and finance to operate all India Tourist Services and a host of such other factors. Apparently it was thought undesirable to make a distinction between State and State on what were perhaps. thought to be elusive criteria and possibly the scheme was expected to give a boost to the transport business in the smaller and less advanced states. And, of course, it was necessary to obtain the agreement and co-operation of all the States. But, the result was that transport operators from big and comparatively prosperous and advanced State, well versed in the intricacies of the transport business very soon flocked to small and comparatively poor and less advanced states like Manipur and Nagaland to apply for and obtain All India permits from the State transport Authorities of those States. It is conceded before us that a large number of persons holding All India permits from some of these small states do not belong to these States at all, but are transport operators coming from far off States. Another factor which appears to have influenced the flocking of transport operators from other States to States like Nagaland and Manipur is the nationalisation of contract carriage service in States like Karnataka. Once the permits were obtained and the vehicles were registered the small states saw the last of the operators. Having obtained the permits, the operators, with their vehicles flocked back to the parent State of the operators (not of the vehicles) or to a State like Karnataka where all contract carriages having been nationalised no private contract carriage was available and there was therefore a great opportunity to ply the vehicles as contract carriages within the State. 4. States like Karnataka were swamped by tourist vehicles from all over the country, registered in other states. These tourist vehicles practically 'colonised' Karnataka and line states and started operating more or less as stage carriages within the particular State, never and rare. ly if ever, moving out of the State. There was no thought or question of undertaking all India or inter-State tours and out went the worthy object of S. 63 (7 ). Quick and easy money with the least trouble and in the shortest time, by whatever method was the the only object. ly if ever, moving out of the State. There was no thought or question of undertaking all India or inter-State tours and out went the worthy object of S. 63 (7 ). Quick and easy money with the least trouble and in the shortest time, by whatever method was the the only object. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of karnataka in some of the Writ Petitions, it is stated:"though the vehicles were registered outside the state of Karnataka, they have been permanently stationed in the State of Karnataka and particularly at Bangalore and the vehicles were are being plied as State carriages. Though All India Tourist permits were obtained by the residents of other States, the permits were used by taking the vehicles and keeping them in the State of Karnataka. The operators run their tourist buses at fixed timings from particular places like the Stage, Carriages operated by the Karnataka state Road Transport Corporation hereinafter called the KSRTC) and other private State Carriage operators. On checking of the vehicles and verification of the passengers, it was found that the passengers found in the vehicles were not genuine tourists and the drivers or the persons in charge of the vehicles were not in a position to produce the trip sheet, name list with whom they entered into contract. It was also found that the passengers found in the vehicles had boarded the buses from one point without any contract being tourists. The Passengers found in the tourist buses are regular passengers going from one place to another for purposes other than tourism. These vehicles were found catering to the needs of general travellers who can make use of the State Carriages operated by the KSRTC or other private stage carriage operators. The respondent produces herewith statements as Annexures K-1 to 9. The Passengers found in the tourist buses are regular passengers going from one place to another for purposes other than tourism. These vehicles were found catering to the needs of general travellers who can make use of the State Carriages operated by the KSRTC or other private stage carriage operators. The respondent produces herewith statements as Annexures K-1 to 9. showing the clandestine operation of the vehicles covered by All India tourist permits, the remarks and irregularities noticed by the Motor Vehicles Inspectors while checking the vehicles covered by All India Tourist permits the, frequent detection of these vehicles running as Stage carriages by -collecting individual fares and picking passengers from one point and setting down them at another point and bringing different passengers in the return journey, from the statements enclosed, it is clear that the operators of the tourist buses covered by All India tourist permits have misused the tourist Buses by running them as regular stage carriages, competing with the KSRTC buses and other private stage carriages within the state. As a result of indiscriminate misuse of the vehicles as stage carriages even though the permits were obtained under S. 63 (7) of the Central Act for Tourism, the State Government has suffered considerable loss in Revenue. These buses actually made use of the passengers which would have normally gone to the ksrtc buses and other private carriages. The very object of obtaining permits under S. 63 (7) of the Central Act, which intended to promote tourism has been misused by these operators of the Tourist buses by plying their vehicles regularly as stage carriages. Most of the permits obtained under S. 63 (7) of the Central act in the States other than the State of Karnataka are made use of for the purported use of running the tourist buses, but actually the permits were misused to run the tourist vehicle either as stage carriage or as contract carriages". A survey made by the Transport Commissioner of maharashtra revealed a similar state of affairs. The transport Commissioner submitted a report to the government of Maharashtra, a copy of which has been made available to us. It is stated in the report: "our estimate is that out of these 1300 permits anything between 300 to 400 buses are operating in Maharashtra with Bombay as the main Centre. The transport Commissioner submitted a report to the government of Maharashtra, a copy of which has been made available to us. It is stated in the report: "our estimate is that out of these 1300 permits anything between 300 to 400 buses are operating in Maharashtra with Bombay as the main Centre. Most of these buses for all practical purposes operate as stage carriage services masquerading as contract carriages. In Maharashtra the ordinary passenger transport by stage carriages and contract carriage has been completely nationalised. All India Tourist Buses on the, other hand' are exploiting the loopholes available in the law and operate point passenger services on routes where the volume of traffic is heavy viz. , routes like Bombay-Kolhapur, Bombay-Mangalore (Bangalore ). Bombay-Panaji, bombay-Belgaum, Bombay-Ahmedabad and Bombay Indore. . . ""on 910 the April, 1983 the Transport Commissioner had personally visited the Charoti Check naka which is our border check post bordering Gujarat on the Bombay ahmedabad Road. From the records of the check post he found that as many as 115 All India Tourist Buses are regularly plying on the ist Buses are regularly plying on this route. After making an analysis of these 115 All India Tourist Buses, he found that 14 permits had been issued by the State Transport authority of Manipur, 17 had been issued by State Transport Authority, Nagar Haveli, 8 by the State transport Authority, Meghalaya and 5 by the State Transport Authority, nagaland. A large number of All India Tourist Buses operating with their base in Bombay appear to have been issued by Manipur, Nagaland and the Union Territory of Dadra nagar Haveli". The petitioners, who are transport operators holding All India permits, deny that any of them was guilty of any malpractice or misuse of the permits held by them. But, notwithstanding the petitioners' denial we do not have the slightest doubt that the allegations of misuse and malpractice made in the counteraffidavit, filed on behalf of karnataka Government, are generally and substantially correct Complantsi about the abuse of the scheme appear to have been made to the Central Government and the Transport advisory Council also. We are also told that the question of meeting the challenge posed by these abuses in receiving the attention of the central Government. 5. The Government of Karnataka, apparently the worst sufferer, reacted sharply. We are also told that the question of meeting the challenge posed by these abuses in receiving the attention of the central Government. 5. The Government of Karnataka, apparently the worst sufferer, reacted sharply. " the seizure orders made in these cases' and the demands made by the rto's in the first two cases are virtually on the basis of the aforesaid proceedings that have been decided against the petitioners either before this court or the Supreme Court as the case may be. ( 12 ) THE petitioners hav asserted that the orders of seizures and the demands made against them, without issue of show cause notices, affording them an opportunity os hearing to state their cases, determining the amounts that are legitimately due by them and making an order there-to are in contravention of the Act and the principles of natural justice. ( 13 ) IN view of the extreme urgency to decide the cases, the respondents without rightly insisting on their right to file their returns have seriously contested them on legal grounds that will be noticed and dealt in due course. But, so far as the facts averred by the petitioners, the respondents admit the payments made by them and alluded to by us either as also the nonissue of show cause notices and nonproviding of an opportunity of hearing to them, at any rate, before demanding the arrears alleged to be due from them. ( 14 ) SRIYUTHS H. B. Datar, A. Anandashetty and S. V. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioners have strenuously contended that the seizure of the vehicles of their respective clients without determining the amounts due by them after notice and providing them an opportunity of hearing was in contravention of the act and the principles of natural justice and was illegal. Sri M. Ranga- swamy, whom we permitted to intervene, supporting the petitioners has urged that the power of seizure conferred by S. 11a of the Act, cannot be enforced against vehicles of other states. ( 15 ) R. N. Narasimhamurthy, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents has urged that the Act by necessary intendment excluded the application of the principle of audialterm partem for recovery of current and arrears of taxes due under the Act and the seizure of vehicles of the petitioners was, therefore, legal. ( 15 ) R. N. Narasimhamurthy, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents has urged that the Act by necessary intendment excluded the application of the principle of audialterm partem for recovery of current and arrears of taxes due under the Act and the seizure of vehicles of the petitioners was, therefore, legal. Alter- natively, he has urged that the petitioners were only entitled to post-decisional hearing and not pre-decisiomal hearing before seizure of their vehicles. ( 16 ) IN support of their respective contentions, both sides have relied on a large number of rulings and those that are relevant will be noticed by us at the appropriate stages. ( 17 ) BEFORE we examine the provisions of the Act, it is usuful to briefly noitce the provisions that relate to registration of Motor Vehicles in the country under the MV. Act, as that will serve as a proper back drop to understand the scheme and object of the Act. ( 18 ) CHAPTER-III of the MV Act deals with registration of Motor Vehicles in the country. S. 22 of the Act provides for compulsory registration of motor Vehicles, issue of certificate of registration and display of registration marks on vehicles. S. 23 dealing with place of registration requires an owner of a Motor Vehicle to have it registered in the office of the registering authority of the State, where he has his residence or place of business where that vehicle is required to be registered in the State where the owner resides or his place of business where such vehicle is normally kept. ( 19 ) SEC. 24 dealing with an application for registration, S. 26 dealing with the production of vehicles at the time of registration and S. 27 that deals with power of authority to register or refuse registration are nor, material for our purpose. ( 20 ) S. 28 makes the registration of a vehicle effective throughort India. ( 19 ) SEC. 24 dealing with an application for registration, S. 26 dealing with the production of vehicles at the time of registration and S. 27 that deals with power of authority to register or refuse registration are nor, material for our purpose. ( 20 ) S. 28 makes the registration of a vehicle effective throughort India. ( 21 ) S 29 provides for assignment of a fresh registration mark on removal of a vehicle to another state if the same is kept in another state for a period exceeding 12 months, S. 30 requires an owner of a vehicle, that changes his residence or place of business to intimate the same to the registering authority and that if such change is to the jurisdiction of another authority, get the same duly entered in the certificate of registration of the vehicle. S. 32 prohibits an owner to alter the particulars of the Motor Vehicle entered in the certificate of registration except in accordance with the requirements of that Section. From this it follows that a Motor Vehicle is required to be registered in one or the other State at the choice of its owner. ( 22 ) THE Act is a consolidating an amending Act. The Act was enacted by the new State of Mysore now called Karnataka repealing the earlier acts that were in force by virtue of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956 in the several integrating areas of the new State. The Act was enacted by the State to levy taxes on Motor Vehicles in exercise of the legislative powers derived by it by Art. 246 (3) and entry 57 of List-II (State List) of 7th schedule to the constitution. The Act came into force from 1-1-1958. In the year 1961, the State in exercise of the powers derived by it by Art. 246 (3) and Entry 56 (State List) of 7th Schedule to the constitution, enacted the karnataka Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers and Goods) Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 10 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act) to levy taxes on passengers and goods carried in stage carriages and public carrier vehicles in the State. The 1961 act has been repealed with effect from 1-7-1976 by the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Amendment) Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 38 of 1976) however, merging the taxes levied with the taxes levied under the Act. The 1961 act has been repealed with effect from 1-7-1976 by the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Amendment) Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 38 of 1976) however, merging the taxes levied with the taxes levied under the Act. From 1-7-1976 the Act provided for levy of taxes on Motor Vehicles and taxes on passengers and goods. ( 23 ) IN Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Limited Etc. v. State Of Rajasthan (A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 1406) and m\s International Tourist Corporation etc. Etc. v. State Of Haryana (A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 774) the Supreme Court in the former dealing with the validity of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1951 and in the latter dealing with the validity of the Haryana passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1952 and various other enactments of other States which are similar to the act, has ruled that taxes levied under such Acts are compensatory taxes levied by the States for the user of roads lying in their states and they do not hinder freedom of Trade, commerce and Intercourse assured by Art. 301 of the constitution. The Court has also ruled that regulatory measures or measures imposing compensatory taxes for the use of trading facilties do not fall within the perview of the restrictions contemplated by Art. 301 and such measures need not comply with the requirements of the proviso to art. 304 (b) of the Constitution. ( 24 ) S. 2 of the Act in defining certain terms also adopts the terms defined in the MV. Act when they are not so defined in the Act. S. 2 (f) defines the terms 'registered owner' as a person in whose name a Motor Vehicle is registered under the MV Act, S. 2 (h) defines a taxation card. ( 25 ) CHAPTER-II of the Act with the title "taxation" requires a close examination. S. 3 and 3a are the charging sections of the Act. S. 3a deals with levy of surcharge which is also a" tax on Motor Vehicles. S. 3 commencing with the heading 'levy of Tax' reads thus:"3. Levy of tax (1) A tax at the rates specified in Part-A of the Schedule shall be levied on all Motor Vehicles suitable for use on roads. S. 3a deals with levy of surcharge which is also a" tax on Motor Vehicles. S. 3 commencing with the heading 'levy of Tax' reads thus:"3. Levy of tax (1) A tax at the rates specified in Part-A of the Schedule shall be levied on all Motor Vehicles suitable for use on roads. Explanation: A Motor Vehicle of which the certificate of registration is current shall, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on roads. Note: For the purpose of the above Explanation the certificate of registration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in S. 38 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939, be deemed to be current even if the certificate of fitness is not effective provided such certificate of fitness has not been cancelled. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), or S. 4 taxes at the rate specified in Part-B of the schedule shall be levied on Motor vehicles suitable for use on roads, which are in the state for periods shorter than a quarter, but not exceeding thirty days. (3) In the case of Motor Vehicles in respect of which any reciprocal arrangement relating to taxation has been entered into between the Government of Karnataka and any other state Government, the levy of tax shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, be in accordance- with the terms and conditions of such reciprocal arrangement: provided that the tax leviable under any such arrangement shall not exceed the tax leviable under the schedule: provided further that the terms and conditions of every such reciprocal arrangement shall be published in the official Gazette, and a copy thereof shall be laid before the State Legislative Assembly". S. 3 (1) deals with levy of taxes on Motor Vehicles registered in the state of Karnataka, S. 3 (2) deals with levy of taxes on Motor Vehicles registered outside the state of Karnataka but propose to enter and use the roads of this state for a period not exceeding 30 days. S. 3 (3) regulates levy of taxes on vehicles covered by reciprocal inter-State agreements between the State of Karnataka and other States. ( 26 ) THE word 'levy' orcurring in s. 3 and 3a that is not defined in the act has different meanings in different contexts. S. 3 (3) regulates levy of taxes on vehicles covered by reciprocal inter-State agreements between the State of Karnataka and other States. ( 26 ) THE word 'levy' orcurring in s. 3 and 3a that is not defined in the act has different meanings in different contexts. But, in the context and scheme of the Act, the following meanings given to that term in Black's Law dictionary and Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition) Appears to be more opposite:"levy, v. To assess; raise ; execute: exact; tax; collect; gather; take up; seize" (Black's Law Dictionary Page 816 ). "the Word "levy" is defined as "to assess and collect by authority or force; as to levy taxes or tribute"town of Amhertst v. Erie county, 256 N. Y. S. 785, 789, 143 Misc. 540. The Word "levy" as applied to taxation,, is given a variety of meanings, among which are: "to impose or assess": "to impose, assess and collect under authority of law": "to raise or collect by assessment"; to charge a sum of money already ascertained against a person or property subject to the charge"; "to determine by vote the amount of tax to be raised"; "to fix the rate at which property is to be, taxed" gray v. Board of School Insspectors of Peoria, 1983 N. E. 95, 98, 231 111. 63". (Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn- p. 7 and 8) cooley in his classic treatise on taxation dealing with the term 'assessment, at pages 1043 Vo. II expresses the view that 'levy' in a taxation statute can as well include, assessment also. With this brief analysis of the charging section, we may now turn to the other provisions in the same chapter. ( 27 ) S. 4 of the Act on the scope of which the controversy revolves reads thus:"payment of tax: - (1) The tax levied under S. 3 shall be paid in advance by the registered owner or person having possession or control of the Motor vehicle, for a quarter half year or year at his choice within 15 days from the commence ment of such quarter, half year or year as the case may be. Provided that where the tax payable in respect of a Motor Vehicle for a year does not exceed three nundred rupees the tax shall be paid annually. Provided that where the tax payable in respect of a Motor Vehicle for a year does not exceed three nundred rupees the tax shall be paid annually. Provided also that notwithstanding anything in this sub-section such tax may be paid in advance in a lumpsum by such owner or person at his choice, for a period of five years or ten years within fifteen days from the commencement of the first year of such period of five years or ten years. Explanations: The tax for half year shall be double the tax for a quarter and the tax for a year shall be four times the tax for a quarter. (2) In case of half yearly and annual payments or payments for the period of five years or ten years, such rebates in respect of the tax as may be prescribed shall be granted. "this section requires all taxes levied under S. 3 to be paid in advance by the registered owner or person having possession or control of the vehicle. Such advance payments of taxes, except in cases where the amount levied on Motor Vehicles like mopeds, scooters Motor Cycles does not exceed rupees three hundred for the entire year, is required to be made for the quarter, half year or year as may be chosen by such owner before such quarter, half year, year, but within the time stipulated therein. The liability and obligation to pay taxes on Motor Vehicles for the quarter, half year or year as the case may be is in advance and that obligation applies to vehicles registered within the State or outside the State also when they propose to enter this state and use the roads of the State. ( 28 ) R. 9 of the Rules with the heading 'assessment of rate of tax' is complementary to S. 3 (1) of the Act that regulates the levy of taxes on Motor vehicles registered within the State of Karnataka. ( 28 ) R. 9 of the Rules with the heading 'assessment of rate of tax' is complementary to S. 3 (1) of the Act that regulates the levy of taxes on Motor vehicles registered within the State of Karnataka. Under this Rule, when a Motor Vehicle is registered in the state of Karnataka, the very authority that registers such vehicle examining the particulars of the application for registration is also required to make ar assessment arid stipulate the taxes pa yable on such vehicle under the Act collect the taxes and issue a taxatior, card along with the certificate of registration of such vehicle collecting the taxes on such vehicle for the quarter, half year or the year as the case may be. The period and the rates in such taxation card thus become the tax assessend on such vehicle. Thereafter, the owner is required to pay at the rates specified in such taxation card till the same is revised by the act or by the Authority in situations like alterations of the vehicle. As seen earlier, the taxes determined and shown in the taxation card are required to be paid in advan ce for the quarter, half year or year as the case may be. The periods and intervals at which taxes are required to be paid are not decisive to determine the libaility of taxes on a vehicle. ( 29 ) R. 10 with the heading 'short term' Taxation Card' deals with the vehicles registered in the other States but entering this State temporarily. Before a vehicle registered in other state and is generally used in another state, intends to enter the State ot karnataka, then that vehicle can enter the State of Karnataka only on payment of taxes due to the State of Karnataka and on obtaining a short term taxation card under R. 10 of therules and not otherwise. ( 30 ) THE short term taxation card referred to in R. 10 is required to be issued for 7 or 30 days as the case may be. ( 30 ) THE short term taxation card referred to in R. 10 is required to be issued for 7 or 30 days as the case may be. When a vehicle registered in another state, has entered this State making payment of taxes and obtaining necessary temporary taxation card thereto and Overstay after 30 days, in such an event also, such owner is required to make payment and obtain a taxation card in advance for the further periods, but cannot use the vehicle in the State without keeping a current taxation Card. ( 31 ) S. 5 (1) deals with the issue of taxation cards or receipts for payment of taxes made under S. 4 of the act. A taxation card issued under the act is nothing but a document evidencing the payment of taxes made from time to time on a vehicle by the person liable to pay taxes under the act. ( 32 ) SUB-SEC. (2) and (3) of S. 5 further carry out the object of S. 3, 4 and 5 (1) of the Act. S. 5 (2) of the Act declares that no person can be in the custody of a vehicle, the taxes of which have not been paid On such vehicle. S. 5 (3) prohibits the use of a vehicle on roads or a public place without carrying a taxation card evidencing the payment of taxes on such vehicle to the State. ( 33 ) WE may now examine when can the payment of taxes in advance be avoided and how the same is dealt by the Act and the Rules. ( 34 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred on it by S. 16 of the Act, Government in its Notification No. HD 70mvt 58 dated 8/13-3-1959 which has been in force ever since then and even now, has exempted the vehicles registered in the State of Karnataka but not intended to be used on roads from payment of advance taxes on fulfilling the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The said notification reads thus:"whereas the Government of Karnataka are of opinion that it is necessary in the public interest to exempt the tax payable under the karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation act, 195? in respect of the Motor vehicles specified hereinafter: now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) (ii ). of sub-sec. The said notification reads thus:"whereas the Government of Karnataka are of opinion that it is necessary in the public interest to exempt the tax payable under the karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation act, 195? in respect of the Motor vehicles specified hereinafter: now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) (ii ). of sub-sec. (1) of S. 16 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1957), the Government of Karnataka hereby direct that motor Vehicles registered in the State of Kar. and not intended to be used on roads be exempted from payment of tax under the said Act for the period of one, full quarter, half or year as the case may be during which the Vehicles are not intended to be used on roads, subject to the following conditions: (1) The non-use of the vehicle should be intimated in the form specified below to the Regional Transport Officer concerned before the commencement of the quarter, half year or year as the case may be. (2) The Registration Certificate, tax Token and permit, if any, in respect of the Vehicle or where such documents are seized or retained by any Authority a Certificate obtained from the concerned authority for having seized or retained the documents, should be surrendered to the Regional Transport Officer concerned on or before the first day of the commencement of the quarter, half year Or year, as the case may be. (3) The exemption shall not be applicable, if the vehicle is removed from the garage mentioned in the form referred to in condition (1) without the prior permission of the regional Transport Officer. "the exemption in this notification is available only to vehicles registered in the State and only on the conditions stipulated therein. A Motor Vehicle registered in another State cannot claim the benefit of this notification and, therefore, there cannot be any exemption from payment of advance tax on such a vehicle proposing to enter the State. ( 35 ) SO far as vehicles that are exempted from payment of taxes either under a reciprocal arrangement under s. 3 (3) or under S. 16 of the Act, which was the position on tourist vehicles from 19-9-197. 2 to 31-3-1981 and their requirements also, S. 10a of the Act and R. 34 of the Rules regulate them. ( 35 ) SO far as vehicles that are exempted from payment of taxes either under a reciprocal arrangement under s. 3 (3) or under S. 16 of the Act, which was the position on tourist vehicles from 19-9-197. 2 to 31-3-1981 and their requirements also, S. 10a of the Act and R. 34 of the Rules regulate them. S. 10a requires the owner of a vehicle that is exempted from payment of taxes to obtain a 'tax free taxation card' and carry the same in the vehicle. Rule 34 of the Rules that is complementary to S. 10a of the Act makes detailed provisions for applying and obtaining 'tax free taxation card' on payment of a nominal fee of Rs 5 for the same. A tax free taxation card issued under S. 10 and R. 34 of the Rule- is also a taxation card for purpose of s. 5 of the Act and that provisions, therefore, applies to vehicles exempted from payment of taxes. ( 36 ) THE determination of rates of taxes payable on Motor Vehicles under the Act is comparatively an easy affair. We are, therefore, of the view that for payment of advance taxes, the Act by necessary implication excludes the application of the principles of natural justice. ( 37 ) WE may now turn to the effect that ensure on the construction we have placed on S. 3, 4 and 5 of the act and the relevant Rules. ( 38 ) WHEN advace taxes are not paid on vehicles registered in this State or on vehicles of other States that have entered this State, we are clearly of the opinion that those taxes except in the Cases of those that are exempted, are clearly due to this State under the act and can berecovered in one or the other mode provided by the Act. ( 39 ) BUT, Sri Datar has urged that the word 'due' occurring in the Act and in S. 11 A, in particular can only mean amount determined with due notice and not otherwise. In support of his contention Sri Datar has placed strong reliance on two unreported rulings rendered by Chandrakantaraj urs, in Muktarkhan v. The Regional transport Officer, Mandya (Writ Petition No. 10847 of 1979 decided on 30-8-1979) and P. Tejraj Sharma v. The Assistant Reginnal Transport officer. In support of his contention Sri Datar has placed strong reliance on two unreported rulings rendered by Chandrakantaraj urs, in Muktarkhan v. The Regional transport Officer, Mandya (Writ Petition No. 10847 of 1979 decided on 30-8-1979) and P. Tejraj Sharma v. The Assistant Reginnal Transport officer. Bangalore (Writ Petition No. 9216 of 1981 decided on 18-3-1982) and a ruling rendered by Rama Jois, J. in Masthan Sahib v. R. T. O. Bangalore (1981 (1) K. L. J. 99) and a ruling of the Punjab High Court in custodian General of Evacuee Property new Delhi v. Harnam Singh (A. I. R. 1957 Punjab 58 ). ( 40 ) THE word 'due' occurring in s. 11a and other provisions of the Act which is not defined is not a term of art capable of one and only meaning or even a precise meaning and, therefore, its meaning has necessarily to be ascertained in the context in which it occurs. ( 41 ) THE word due is defined in oxford English Dictionary, inter alia as under:"due 1. That is owing or payable, as an enforceable obligation or debt. 4. A payment legally due or obligatory; a legal charge, toll, tribute. fee, or the like. Chiefly in PI. Often with attrib. Word, expressing the nature of the charge, as admiral, dock, Easter, harbour, light, market. sound, tonnage dues etc. ,"black's Law Dictionary, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and words and Phrastes inter alia define the said terms as hereunder:"the word "due" always imports a fixed and settled obligation or liability, but with reference to the time for its payment there is considerable ambiguity in the use of the term, the precise signification being determined in each case from the context. It may mean that the debt or claim in question is 'now (presently or immediately) matured and enforceable or that it matured at some time in the past and yet remains unsatisfied, or that it is remains unsatisfied, or that it is fixed and certain but the day appointed for its payment has not yet arrived. But, commonly, and in the absence of any qualifying expressions, the word "due" is restricted to the first of these meanings, the second being expressed by the term "over due" and the third by the word "payable". But, commonly, and in the absence of any qualifying expressions, the word "due" is restricted to the first of these meanings, the second being expressed by the term "over due" and the third by the word "payable". (Black's law Dictionary Page 448) 'due' may mean immediately payable (its common signification), or a debt contracted but payable in- future (per Gibson, J. , Irish Land commission v. Massereene (1904) 2 ir. R. 413. (Stroud's Judicial Dictionary p. 889) the Word "due" may mean that the debt or obligation to which it is applied has become immediately payable or that the debt has become ascertained and fixed although payable in the future. Furrow V. C. I. R. C. A. , 292 F. 2d 604, 606. "due" in its larger and general sense signifies that which is owed, that which one contracts to pay, or perform to another, including liabilities matured and unmatured, and it may import indebtedness or an existing obligation without reference today of payment, depending upon the context and evident purpose. Session of Brewer v. Slate I. a. App. 80. So, 2d 217, 220" (Words and Phrases, permanent Edn. p. 91 and 92 ). on these meanings, our earlier conclusion that On failure, to make payment of advance taxes, the same would be tax due under the Act is fortified and is well founded. ( 42 ) IN the cases relied on by Sri. Datar, the precise question did not arise for cosidertion either before this court or the Punjab High Court and they are of no assistance to him. Even if those cases are capable of being understood, in the manner suggested by sri. Datar, with respect we find it difficult to subscribe to them for the detailed reasons we have earlier stated. ( 43 ) THE validity of Ss. 11,11 A, 12, 13 and 14 of the Act are not in challenge. ( 44 ) S. 11 of the Act confers on the authorised officers in uniform to stop and check vehicles as to the payment of taxes under the Act. S. 14 of the act renders a permit issued under the mv Act for using a Transport Vehicle ineffective till the taxes due on such vehicle are actually paid. ( 45 ) SS. S. 14 of the act renders a permit issued under the mv Act for using a Transport Vehicle ineffective till the taxes due on such vehicle are actually paid. ( 45 ) SS. 11a, 12 and 13 are the provisions that deal with the recovery of taxes due under the Act, The Act provides for three modes of recovery of taxes due under the Act. Each of recovery is independent of the other. But, this does not mean that when one mode is resorted to, the other two modes are excluded. All the three modes can be resorted to and even simultaneously in a given case. Whether all of them should be resorted to simultaneously or not is a matter for the authority to decide and the defaulter cannot be heard to say on all or any of them. ( 46 ) WE are not concerned in these cases with the modes provided in S. 12 and 13 of the Act as the authorities have not resorted to those modes. We have, therefore, to examine S. 11a which reads thus:"11a. Power to seize and detain vehicles :-Without prejudice to the provisions of Ss. 13 and 14 where any tax due in respect of any Motor Vehicle has not been paid within the period specified in S. 4, such Officer - (i) of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of an inspector of Motor Vehicles: or (ii) of the Police Department not below the rank of an Inspector of Police, as the State Government may empower in this behalf, may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, seize and detain such vehicle and for this purpose, take or cause, to be taken all steps for the safe custody of the vehicle, until the tax due in respect of the vehicle is paid". As noticed earlier also, the power conferred by this section is without prejudice to the powers conferred by the provisions and the legal effect brought about on a permit issued to a transport vehicle under the MV Act. S. 11 A authorises the authorised officers to seize and detain a Motor Vehicle for taxes due till such taxes are paid and proof thereof is produced before him or his superior officer. S. 11 A authorises the authorised officers to seize and detain a Motor Vehicle for taxes due till such taxes are paid and proof thereof is produced before him or his superior officer. A taxation authority under the Act, who is also an officer of the Motor Vehicles Department who is undoubtedly competent to exercise the power of seizure and detention for taxes due, can direct the other authorised officers of the Motor Vehicles or Police Department to seize and detain a Motor Vehicle when taxes are due on such vehicle under the Act. ( 47 ) EARLIER, we have found that advance taxes not paid on a Motor vehicle for that relevant quarter are taxes due, under the Act and, therefore, it is open to an authorised officer to seize and detain a vehicle for such nonpayment, which is a tax due under the act. The power conferred by S. 11a can be exercised on vehicles registered in this or outside States also. The power of seizure and detention conferred by S. 11. A is not excluded to vehicles registered outside the state as suggested by Sri. Rangaswamy. ( 48 ) SO far we find no difficulty in accepting the construction suggested by the learned Advocate General. But, the real difficulty arises in accepting the construction suggested by the learned advocate General on taxes if any that had not been paid by the petitioners before they approached this court or the Supreme Court or during the, periods they had the benefit of interim orders in their favour. ( 49 ) WITH the withdrawal of exemption, the validity of which has now been upheld, tourist vehicles of other states proposing to enter the State from 1-4-1981 were required to pay taxes under the Act. On and from that date, the Tourist Vehicles of other states could not have entered the state without making payment of advance taxes to this State under the act. But, those periods have; undoubtedly expired and on any principle we cannot Say, they are periods that are still current and are cases of proposing to enter this State. On and from that date, the Tourist Vehicles of other states could not have entered the state without making payment of advance taxes to this State under the act. But, those periods have; undoubtedly expired and on any principle we cannot Say, they are periods that are still current and are cases of proposing to enter this State. ( 50 ) EVEN assuming that the Tourist Vehicles of the petitioners have' entered this State on and after 1-4-1981 and had used their vehicles in the State before they approached this court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is even very probable but on which we do not express any opinion, we find it difficult to hold that taxes not paid for those periods still remain advance taxes before their entry and user for the said period. What is true for the periods prior to the presentation of the Writ Petitions and interim orders were made by the courts, is more true for the periods for which taxes were not paid by the petitioners when they had the benefit of an interim order in their favour either before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this court. For both these periods, we must necessarily hold that there has been a default in payment of taxes if any due on the vehicles and they are not cases in which advance taxes had not been paid before entry to this State and user of the roads of this State. ( 51 ) SO far as arrears of taxes, the possibility of disputes between owners of vehicles and the revenue altogether be ruled out and may invariably exist in every case. Even the petitioners do not admit the entry of their vehicles and their user for the period for which arrears are claimed from them. When a show cause notice is issued to which an explanation or a reply is filed by the owner of the vehicle it has necessarily to be examined and decided and the original authority taking a particular view, the possibility of the appellate and the revisional authority under the Act taking a different view cannot altogether be ruled out. ( 52 ) THE Act and the Rules are silent on the determination of arrears of taxes due on a Motor Vehicle to the state. ( 52 ) THE Act and the Rules are silent on the determination of arrears of taxes due on a Motor Vehicle to the state. The Act by express terms or by necessary intendment does not also exclude the application of the principles of natural justice to such cases. ( 53 ) THE law relating to natural justice is now well settled by a large number of rulings Of our Supreme court, this Court and other Courts also and it 'will be an idle parade, of scholarship to notice the origin, development and the present state of law thereto. But, one of the basic requirements of natural justice referred to as 'deal justice' my Roscoe Pound Jurisprudence (Vol II) Chapter 13 justice according to Law' P. 359 or 'fair play in Action' by Lord Morris, of Borth-y-Gest in Wiseman v. Boreman (1971 A. C. 297 at 309) is audi alteram partem or that both sides shall be heard, requires that a decision should not be taken without notifying the opponent and providing him an opportunity of hearing in opposition to a case made against him. We are of the opinion that before deciding the liability for arrears of taxes under the Act, the requirements of audi alteram partem one of the basic requirements of natural justice is not excluded and is applicable. We find no consistency or inconvenience in enforcing this principle to the dete,tmination of arrears of taxes, which we have earlier held had no application to payment of advance taxes under the Act for the periods that are current. ( 54 ) BUT, Sri Murthy has urged that the principle of exclusion of audi alteram partem to payment of advance taxes, a fortiori applies to arrears of taxes under the Act on the ground that there was a failure to obtain taxation cards from time to time. ( 55 ) THE Scheme regulating payment of advance taxes under the Act is not the same as to the determination of arrears, if any that have fallen due under the Act, for whatever reasons that may be. ( 55 ) THE Scheme regulating payment of advance taxes under the Act is not the same as to the determination of arrears, if any that have fallen due under the Act, for whatever reasons that may be. We are of the view that it is even illogical and somewhat odd to hold that there are arrears on vehicles registered outside the State of karnataka but which are free to enter the territory of Karnataka at their choice, solely on the ground that they had not obtained taxation cards for the earlier or disputed periods. We, therefore see no merit in this contention of the learned Advocate General and reject the same. ( 56 ) SRI Murthy has strenuously contended that even if the seizures were invalid for want of a prior show cause notice and a prior determination in conformity with the requirements of natural justice, having regard to all the facts and circumstances, this Court should decline to interfere with the seizures and only direct a post deci- sional hearing. In support of his contention Sri Murthy has strongly relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of india (A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 181:1981 (1) s. C. C. 644. ( 57 ) IN Jagadish Patil v. State Of karnataka (1981 (1) Kar. L. J. 443) a division Bench of this Court speaking through one of us (Puttaswamy, J) dealing with a similar contention urged in that case to sustain an order of supersession under S. 30a of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, analysing the very case relied on by the learned Advocate General and all other cases bearing on that question has expressed thus:"16. We are of the opinion, that in the circumstances of this case, the course of action suggested by Sri brahmarayappa is not permissible. The reasons are more than one. First, this is not one of those cases in which a precipitate and immediate, action that does not brook a moment's delay was and is required to be taken as in the case of impounding of a passport of an Indian citizen leaving the shores of India. The reasons are more than one. First, this is not one of those cases in which a precipitate and immediate, action that does not brook a moment's delay was and is required to be taken as in the case of impounding of a passport of an Indian citizen leaving the shores of India. Secondly the principle 'action first and then an opportunity of hearing' is more in the nature of exception of that rule and cannot be applied to all cases irrespective of its particular fact situation, Acceptance of any such submission would virtually rob the precious right to be heard of its essence and reduce it to an empty formality. This court should be loathe to accept such a suggestion except in compelling exceptional circumstances. We cannot, therefore, accede to this request of Sri Brahmarayappa and we reject the same". We are of the opinion, that this statement of law which is still good law, governs the seizers of Motor Vehicles so far as the recovery of arrears of taxes. Even the earlier Division bench ruling of this Court in J. S. Prakash v. Secretary, Regional Transport authority (1972 (2) Kar. L. J. 470) is also to the same effect. We, therefore hold that before seizing a Motor Vehicle under S. 11a of the Act for arrears of taxes there should be a prior determination of such arrears in conformity with the requirement of the principles of natural justice, and that cannot be avoided by the authorities. Even otherwise, the fact situations also did not and cannot justify 'seizure first and hearing next'. For all these reasons, we reject this contention of the learned Advocate General, very strongly pressed before us. ( 58 ) WHILE redetermining the arrears, the authorities under the Act, can and should even bear the telling observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayaram's case, which we have earlier extracted, as even raising presumption against the petitioners, which of course is rebuttable. We need hardly observe that in such determination, the authority can rely on the evidence that has already been collected and available and can also collect all such further evidence as is necessary for that purpose. We need hardly observe that in such determination, the authority can rely on the evidence that has already been collected and available and can also collect all such further evidence as is necessary for that purpose. When the original authority re-determines the arrears and calls upon the owner to pay the same in that very order specifying the time, if any thereto, such amount will become 'tax due' on such vehicle and the authorities are then free to enforce the recovery provisions in one or the other mode, provided by the Act. ( 59 ) WE may now examine the scope and ambit of S. 9 of the Act as that is relevant to the facts and developments found in W. P. . No. 18958 of 1983 and that section reads thus:"9. Liability to pay arrears of tax:- (1) If the tax leviable in respect of any Motor Vehicle remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment there of and such person before having paid the, tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax to the taxation authority. (2) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the liability of the person, who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of the vehicle, to pay the said tax. Under this section the transferee of a vehicle with or without notice of the arrears of taxes due on such vehicle also becomes liable to pay such arrears. Any transfer of a vehicle on which arrears of tax are due under the Act, whether for valuable consideration, genuine or otherwise does not destroy the liability of taxes on such vehicle and the same can be recovered from the transferor and transferee as if there was no transfer for purpose of recovery of arrears of taxes under the Act on such vehicle. But, in such cases, it is desirable and proper to issue show cause notices to both if that fact is known or made known to the authority that determines the arrears. But, in such cases, it is desirable and proper to issue show cause notices to both if that fact is known or made known to the authority that determines the arrears. ( 60 ) IN W. P. No. 18958 of 1983, the petitioners have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per day from the respondents on the ground that seizure of the vehicle was invalid and, illegal. ( 61 ) AT the hearing Sri Datar, in our opinion, very rightly did not press this extravagant claim made by the petitioners. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the order of seizure made by the IMV, an authorised officer, the seizure of the vehicle and its detention thereafter was bona fide and was exercised for purposes of the Act and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation that too in a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution. We, therefore, hold that the claim for compensation is liable to be rejected. ( 62 ) WE will now examine the individual cases and reliefs to be granted by this Court. ( 63 ) SO far as check reports that are challenged, they do not call for our interference as they only set out the facts noticed by the officers in the performance of their duties. When action is taken on the basis of those check reports either before a Crimnal court or a transport authority, it is open to the petitioners to urge the defences that are open to them. We therefore, decline to interfere with the check reports challenged in the cases. ( 64 ) WE are of the view that the seizure orders in all the cases suffer from one or more infirmity and are, therefore, liable to be quashed. ( 65 ) WE are also of the view that the orders determining the arrears of taxes and the demands made thereto are in contravention of the principles of natural justice and are, therefore, liable to be quashed. ( 66 ) ON the above conclusion' normally the petitioners are entitled for a direction to return their vehicles to them without any condition except reserving liberty to re-determine and recover the amounts that are found due. ( 66 ) ON the above conclusion' normally the petitioners are entitled for a direction to return their vehicles to them without any condition except reserving liberty to re-determine and recover the amounts that are found due. But, having regard to all the facts and circumstances and the observations of the Supreme court, we consider it proper to direct the petitioners to furnish security for the amounts in dispute and also impose a condition not to further encumber the vehicles and alienate them, till the re-determination proceedings are completed. ( 67 ) WE have generally found that seizure orders are issued by the officers of the Motor Vehicles department, particularly the Inspectors of Motor Vehicles, who are generally drafted for that work, without genuinely applying their mind and setting out all the reasons that justify such seizures, causing considerable anxiety to the owner and needlessly increasing the work of this Court also. We need hardly emphasise that the forms prescribed and supplied, cannot be mechanically used by the officers even causing anxiety to this Court. ( 68 ) WE must remember that an order of seizure that results in serious consequences to the owner andthe crew of the vehicle, considerably inconveniences the passengers and goods carried in transport vehicles also. Without any doubt such extra-ordinary power must be exercised by an officer with full reflection and circumstances to achieve the objects of the Act and not casually. We do hope and trust that the officers of the Motor Vehicles department and other Officers will avoid such lapses in future and exercise the same with care and caution in justifiable circumstances and State the grounds for seizures with clarify. ( 69 ) IN the light of our above discussion, we make the following orders and directiods : (1) We dismiss these writ petitions in so far as they relate to check reports without examining their validity and expressing any opinion thereto reserving liberty to both sides to agitate the matters either before a Criminal Court or concerned Transport authority as the case may be; (II) We quash the seizure orders and the orders determining and demanding the arrears of taxes impugned in these cases. But, this order does not prevent the competent Officer to re-determine the arrears of taxes, if any, due from the petitioners and recovering them in accordance with law. But, this order does not prevent the competent Officer to re-determine the arrears of taxes, if any, due from the petitioners and recovering them in accordance with law. (III) We direct the petitioners in these cases to furnish security for the amounts noted against each case to the satisfaction of the concerned Regional Transport Officer : (a) WP No. 18958/1983 Rs. 73,440 (b) WP No. 18995/1983 Rs. 65,772 (c) WP No. 19353/1983 Rs. 30,000 (IV) We direct the petitioners to produce the registration certificates of their vehicles before the regional Transport Officer before whom they furnish security along with a written under-taking to the effect that they will'not further encumber and alienate their vehicles and on such production, the concerned Regional Transport officer is directed to impose a condition to the effect that the registered owner shall not further encumber or alienate such vehicle till the proceedings for arrears of taxes claimed from 1-4-1981 and onwards are redetermined and he shall also appraise the same to the registering authorities of other States, if any. (V) We direct the respondents in each of these cases to release the respective Motor Vehicles to the respective petitioners as soon as they comply with the terms and conditions imposed by this order, making necessary orders thereto without any loss of time. ( 70 ) WRIT Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. But, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. ( 71 ) LET this order be communicated to the respondents forthwith. Let this order be also furnished to the learned Advocate General simultaneously. --- *** --- .