Honble KOCHHAR, J. – The facts, giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are as under :– (2). The motor-bus, bearing registration No. RNP 296 (the bus in question) was seized by the Transport Authorities, since certain amount was due on account of Road-Tax in respect thereof. The bus in question is registered in the name of Shri Mohammad Ishaq. The petitioner is the Power of Attorney holder of Shri Mohd. Ishaq and has been running the bus in question as his attorney. (3). The motor-bus, bearing No. RRQ-3464 (the other bus), is registered in the name of Shri Ezaz Ahmed, the husband of the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 73,221/- was due in respect of the other bus, by way of Road-Tax. (4). Although, the petitioner had paid the tax in respect of the bus in question, the same was not released by the Transport Authorities, and thereupon, an application was moved by the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Indergarh, District Bundi, vide his order dated 4.10.94, directed that the bus in question should be given on `supardginama, to the petitioner, subject to the condition that she would produce the bus in question before the court, as and when directed to do so and that she would settle the matter, pending before the Transport Authorities, in respect of the other bus, within a period of one month from that date and submit a report in respect thereof, before the court. The petitioner took possession of the bus in question on `supardginama, but having not settled the matter in respect of the other bus, did not report back to the court, who, without issuing notice to the petitioner, cancelled the `supardginama and directed that the bus in question should be seized, whereupon, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing this petition. (5). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. (6). It is not in dispute that no amount by way of Road Tax is due in respect of the bus in question and further that the dues, stated to have been due are only in respect of the other bus, which is registered in the name of Shri Ezaz Ahmed, the husband of the petitioner. (6). It is not in dispute that no amount by way of Road Tax is due in respect of the bus in question and further that the dues, stated to have been due are only in respect of the other bus, which is registered in the name of Shri Ezaz Ahmed, the husband of the petitioner. No provision of law has been brought to my notice, under which, the Transport Authorities can seize the bus in question, which stands regis- tered in the name of a person, other than the one, in whose name, the bus is registered and for which the dues are payable. It is true that the petitioner did not settle the matter in respect of payment of Road-Tax in regard to the other bus, but the condition imposed in the order of the learned Magistrate, while giving the bus in question on `supardginama, itself, is illegal and without jurisdiction and, as such, no action could be taken for cancelling the `supardginama by the learned Judicial Magistrate. (6). In this view of the matter, if the impugned order is not set aside, it would amount to abuse of the process of court and would result into injustice to the petitioner. (7). Consequently, I accept this petition, set aside the impugned order dated 24.7.96 and quash the condition imposed in the order dated 4.10.94, in regard to the petitioner settling the matter with the Transport Authorities in respect of the other bus. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.