Judgment A. S. GODARA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , is directed against the order dated 23-2-98 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 81/98 whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the application moved by the accused-petitioner to release Jeep No. RJ-31-C-1072 which was seized by the District Transport Officer, Hanumangarh on 18-2-98 at 2 P. M. at Makkasar at the time of spot checking and the accused-petitioner was found while carrying 7 passengers after realizing fare at the rate of Rs. 4/- per head. The accused-petitioner, admittedly, being the registered owner of the vehicle, did not have any permit to operate his vehicle for transportation of passengers and the same being registered as a private vehicle for his personal use, since the accused-petitioner did not obtain any permit required by the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the Act) and, besides, he had also not paid road-tax and so, in absence of any permit/special permit or authority and non-payment of tax, he was found to have contravened the provisions of Sections 66 and 192-A of the Act and hence, while preparing a separate detailed checking memo, the D. T. O. seized the vehicle and produced the same before the trial Court along with a criminal complaint for prosecution of the accused-petitioner for commission of the aforesaid offences where at the present proceedings are said to be as yet pending. It was requested that since he was the registered owner of the vehicle and he never used the same for transportation of passengers and instead he was making its personal use only and therefore, there did not arise any question of any road-tax or special road-tax being payable to the State and the vehicle was no longer required by any Government agency and hence the same be delivered on supurdginama to the accused-petitioner but on the face of objection from the transport authorities that road-tax/special road-tax were also payable by the accused-petitioner and unless the same were cleared in view of the Circular No. 4/p-1 dated 28-7-75 as also affirmed in similar S. B. Criminal Petition No. 675/95-State v. Mohd. Nisar decided on 17-7-97, the vehicle so seized and produced before the learned trial Magistrate could not be delivered on supurdginama to the accused-petitioner in case any tax payable in respect thereof stood outstanding against the person so claiming custody of the vehicle and hence the application of the accused-petitioner stood dismissed giving rise to the present petition. ( 2 ) AT the out set, it may be observed that since the transport authorities raised an objection before the trial Court and the same was reiterated before this Court by the learned P. P. on behalf of the State specially the transport authorities and, therefore, it was requested that the full particulars of outstanding dues or any amount, payable to the transport authorities as tax, on whatever basis or under any head, be submitted before the Court but the transport authorities did not come forward with any claim except the submission that since the vehicle in question was so checked at the spot and the accused-petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle, was found to have charged Rs. 4/- from each of the seven persons travelling in his jeep and, therefore, the accused-petitioner was caught red-handed while carrying and transporting passengers charging fare and he could not have, in absence of a valid permit, used the vehicle as a taxi to be plied for carriage/transportation of passengers on hire and hence he is liable to pay road-tax or the special road-tax to be assessed by the departmental authorities for the questioned incident reported to the trial Court and no other dues are pending against the accused-petitioner. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the accused-petitioner is vehemently denying his liability for having charged any hire or fare as alleged by the prosecution from any person and instead the vehicle being duly registered with the transport authorities in the name of the accused-petitioner who was also in custody and charge of the vehicle at the time of its checking and seizure and, therefore, when the alleged incident is a subject matter of enquiry/trial by the trial Court and the transport authorities have not so far been able to submit either before the trial Court or even before this Court that even a paisa was outstanding against the accused-petitioner on account of his liability for payment of road-tax and, therefore, the transport authorities have mala fide opposed application of the petitioner and, as a result, the vehicle is rotting and being damaged in absence of being delivered to the accused-petitioner who is its registered owner. Therefore, his submission is that, presently, the accused-petitioner has not been held liable for payment of any amount on account of his liability for payment of road-tax and, in its absence, pre-judging the decision of the trial Court, the vehicle is being detained for an indefinite period whereas looking to the likely damage to be suffered by the vehicle, the same ought to have been released on appropriate terms and conditions in favour of the accused-petitioner but, by refusing the same, the impugned order of the learned trial Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice occasioning a failure warranting quashing of the impugned order. ( 4 ) WITHOUT embarking upon the nice merits of the case, for the present, on consideration of legal provisions, Section 66 (1) of the Act says :"66 (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used : provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 5 ) THUS, under Section 66 (1) of the Act, the onwer of the vehicle is prohibited or allowed user of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place without a permit and its violation makes him liable for punishment under Section 192 (1) of the Act and, accordingly, there is no difficulty to observe presently that sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the Act prohibits use of motor vehicle save in accordance with the conditions of permit. Accordingly, though the jeep is, not a transport vehicle and, therefore, if a motor-jeep is used for carrying passengers for hire or reward there would be an occasion for its being used as a transport vehicle and, if it is so used without permit, there would be a breach of Section 66 (1), punishable under Section 192 of the Act State of Mysore v. Syed Ibrahim, AIR 1967 SC 1424 : (1967 Cri LJ 1215 ). ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, it may be observed that the trial Court is yet to conduct and complete the trial of the accused-petitioner for the alleged commission of the offences for which he stands prosecuted but, the transport authorities have not so far been able to have departmentally proceeded against the accused-petitioner and to impose any liability for payment of road-tax or special road-tax in absence of existence of any valid permit for operating vehicle as a transport vehicle for carriage of passengers for hire or reward by the accused-petitioners though he is a registered owner of the vehicle and, consequently, at present, the position that has emerged is that, presently, there is no liability so far having been adjudged by the transport/taxation authorities against the accused-petitioner for which he is liable to make payment before seeking custody of the vehicle. However, as the conduct of the departmental authorities shows, that the liability so being claimed is likely to occur consequent upon decision of the case against the accused-petitioner in case he is found guilty of commission of the offences and hence, the learned trial Magistrate shall be within his competence to impose punishment/fine/penalty for contravention of the aforesaid provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and in case there is one for payment of any tax according to Rules, the learned trial Magistrate shall be at liberty to realize the amount of fine/penalty so imposed on the accused-petitioner and, at the same time, in case the vehicle is released on supurdginama in favour of the accused-petitioner, calling upon him either to wipe out the amount of fine, penalty including that of tax liability, if any, or to produce the vehicle before the trial Court so as to enable the trial Court to proceed against the same for realisation of the amount so required to be realized from the accused-petitioner. However, in the special circumstances of the case, presently, in absence of any specific liability having been shown against the accused-petitioner for payment of any amount to the transport authorities on account of payment of arrears of tax, the department cannot be justified to object against release of the vehicle on supurdginama. However, the trial Court shall be at liberty to impose appropriate terms and conditions for release of the vehicle on supurdginama in favour of the accused-petitioner calling upon him to additionally furnish surety bond as well for compliance of such terms and conditions and, meanwhile, it is also expected from the trial Court that such cases be disposed of without further loss of any time because the very purpose of creation of mobile Courts is to expedite and deliver quickest possible decisions in such matters which are of pretty nature. ( 7 ) RESULTANTLY, in the aforesaid circumstances, the trial Court is ordered to pass final order in regard to liability of the accused-petitioner for payment of any specific liquidated amount of arrears of road tax, by whatever name it is described, payable to the transport authorities which shall be immediately paid by the accused-petitioner within a period of 7 days of the date of receipt of this order and in case the trial Court is not in a position to pass such an order within the stipulated period of seven days, it is further ordered that the vehicle so seized/impounded by the transport authorities and placed at the disposal of the trial Court, the same, without further loss of time, shall be released on supurdginama of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be executed by the accused-petitioner and, besides, he shall also furnish one surety in the like amount undertaking to produce the vehicle before the trial Court as and when required for any purpose whatsoever, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion. Besides, the petitioner shall have to give an undertaking that he shall never ply this vehicle again as a transport vehicle in absence of a valid permit obtained from the transport department under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and in case he again contravenes these provisions, he may not be entitled to similar release of vehicle on supurdginama in future. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, this petition along with its connected stay petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Order accordingly. .