Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 192 (RAJ)

Shafi Mohd v. State

1995-02-20

N.K.JAIN

body1995
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 7.1.1993 passed by the District Transport Officer Bhilwara. 2. The case came up on an application under Article 226(3) but as agreed by the learned Lounsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that without following the mandatory procedure laid down under section 8-A of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 read with Rule-8 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951, the impugned order dated 7.1.1993 has been passed therefore, the same may be quashed. He also submits that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 13.1.94, the petitioner has already furnished solvent security. 4. On the other hand Mr. Kothari submits that there is an alternative remedy but without availing the statutory remedy, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. It is no doubt true that generally this Court does not interfere in the writ jurisdiction, if an alternative statutory remedy is provided. But at the same time the availability of alternative remedy is no bar where the order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. Each case depends upon the facts of its own. 7. In the instant case, admittedly no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to determination of the tax liability due to which the petitioner has been deprived of a reasonable opportunity of hearing and defending his case. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and proper to remand the case back to the concerned District Transport Officer to decide the matter afresh. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned officer on 24.3.1995 and thereafter the authority will consider and decide the case according to law as early as possible. 8. In the result, the impugned order dated 7.1.1993 is set aside and the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. *******