JUDGMENT 1. - This is a plaintiff's revision petition against the order of the Addl. District Judge. Deep dated August 5, 1983 by which he dismissed his appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Munsiff Kama by which the petitioners' application for temporary injunction under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C. P. C. was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the court of Munsiff Kama, challenging the imposition of Vehicle Tax by the Gram Panchayat Chichorwari. The case set up by the Plaintiff is that he obtained a mining lease in village Seu where he excavates building stones. He transports the building stone, of his lease hold quarry to various places through Trucks Tractors and Trollies These Trucks, Trollies and Tractors hive to pass through the local limits of the defendant- Panchayat. The defendant-Panchayat issued a notice to the plaintiff on 16 10.92 whereby he was directed to ply Baheti Tax on Transportation of Minerals at the rate of Rs. 5/- per Truck, Rs. 2/ - per Trolly, Rs. 1/- per Buliack Cart and 0.10 paise per annum The plaintiff challenged this imposition of tax mainly on two grounds viz.- 1. No tax on Motor Vehicles could be imposed by the Panchayat as it had on powers and jurisdiction and. 2. The tax imposed is virtually a tax on the mineral produce. The Panchavat again has no powers and authority to impose tax on mineral produce. Simultaneously, with the institution of the suit, the plaintiff presented an application for temporary injunction directing the defendant-panchayat not to collect tax from him during the pendency of the suit. The application was resisted and opposed by the defendant-Panchayat. The Learned Munsif heard the parties and by his order dated 13 1.83 dismissed the plaintiff's application and declined to issue the temporary injunction The plaintiff went in appeal which was heard and dismissed by the Addl. District Judge; Deeg by his order dated 5.8.83. The plaintiff is a now come up in revision. Despite service of notice on the non-petitioner, nobody put appearance on its behalf. The revision was, therefore, heard ex-parte. I have heard Mr. N.K. Maloo learned counsel for the plaintiff - petitioner. 3. It was contended by Mr. Maloo that the entire approach of the courts below is erroneous and unsustainable. Section 64 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. Despite service of notice on the non-petitioner, nobody put appearance on its behalf. The revision was, therefore, heard ex-parte. I have heard Mr. N.K. Maloo learned counsel for the plaintiff - petitioner. 3. It was contended by Mr. Maloo that the entire approach of the courts below is erroneous and unsustainable. Section 64 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. 1953 (hereinafter) no doubt empowers a Panchayat to levy vehicles tax. But this provision has to be read with Rules 112 & 113 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyay-Panchayat (General) Rules. 1961. Rule 113 exempts certain vehicles from the tax under the Act. Clause (a) of this Rule 113 clearly lays down that no tax can be levied on the vehicle which is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It was also argued that the tax imposed by the Panchayat is a tax not on the vehicles but on the minerals. The Panchayat is not empowered to levy tax on the minerals. Section 64 does not permit a Panchayat to leavy and tax on a mineral produce. I have taken the submissions into consideration. The submissions made by Mr. Maloo are not without force. 4. Section 64 of the Act empowers a Panchayat to impose taxes. Clause (g) of sub-section (1) of section 64 lays down that a Panchayat may impose tax on the vehicles except on those vehicles which are used for the purpose of cultivation. Rule 113 of the rules speaks about the exemptions. Clause (b) of this rule lays down that no vehicle tax shall be leviable in respect of a vehicle if it is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 5. Section 64 of the Act and Rule 113 of the Rules are to be read together. The section empowers a Panchayat to impose tax whereas Rule 113 carves out the exemption from vehicle tax When these two provisions i. e. Sec, 64 and Rule 113 are read together, the position which appears is that a Panchayat is not empowered to levy vehicle tax in respect of a vehicle if the vehicle is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, Here in the instant case the Panchayat has imposed tax also on the Truck, and the Tractor, Trolly. It cannot be denied that the truck and the tractor are Motor vehicles within the meaning of the Moist Vehicles Act, 1939, Prima-facie therefore, the defendant-Panchayat is not empowered to impose tax on the Truck and Tractor Trolly. 6. Both the courts below held that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima-facie case in his favour. The approach, is wholly erroneous and unsustainable. There is no magic in the phrase "Prima-facie case". What is implied by the phrase prima-facie case is that there should be serious question to be tried in the suit and that on the facts before the court, it cannot be said that the case based on those facts is wholly untenable and not maintainable. Prima-facie case only means a substantial question raised bona fide which at the first sight needs investigation and inquiry. 7. Here in the instant case the allegation of the ' plaintiff that the defendant-Panchayat has no power or right or authority to impose tax on the truck and tractor trolly cannot be said as non-substantial or not well founded. The provisions of Section 64 of the Act and Rule 113 of the rules as discussed above prima-facie show that the plaintiffs' allegation raises a substantial question which needs investigation and inquiry. There is thus, strong prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff. 8. As regards the elements of irreparable injury and balance of convenience, they are certainly in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been called upon by the Panchayat to pay the tax which the Panchayat is prima-facie not empowered to impose. If the plaintiff is compelled to pay the tax on his truck or tractor trolly, be is likely to suffer irreparable loss. The balance of convenience also lies that the status quo should be maintained and the tax should not be collected from the plaintiff on his Motor Vehicles. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the learned Additional District Judge, Deeg dated 5 8.1983 and the order of the Munsiff Kama dated 13.1.1983 are set aside. The plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction is allowed and the defendant Gram Panchayat Chichorwari is directed not to levy tax on the plaintiff's vehicles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******