JUDGMENT By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, seeks to challenge the validity of the demand contained in the demand notices dated 26.2.91 (Annexure-B) and 4.3.91, dated 17.5.91 (Annexure-E) and also the Revenue Recovery Certificate dated 17.7.91 (Annexure-F). According to petitioner, he could not ply the vehicle for shortage of the diesel, because of certain festivals, and as the bus was requisitioned by the State Authorities during the period of general elections. The petitioner time and again submitted his objections to the alleged demand, but instead of passing any orders on the said representations/applications, the Department ultimately issued the Revenue Recovery Certificate. Shri Kohli, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in view of Rule 3-A of M.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1947, the petitioner is entitled to show to the authorities that for any/some unforeseen reason it was not possible for the petitioner to ply the bus, therefore, he was not liable to be taxed. According to Shri Kohli, so long as the applications/representations filed by the petitioner are not decided, the authorities are not entitled to recover the amount from the petitioner. Shri Seth, learned Dy. Advocate General for respondent submits that the authorities were justified in issuing the demands and the RRC. 1[ have heard the parties at length. Rule 3-A of 1947 Rules in its second proviso provides that if for any unforeseen circumstances it has not been possible to operate the vehicle on the route covered by the permit (whether in full or in part) the owner shall immediately intimate the Taxation Authority of the situation and if the Taxation Authority is satisfied that such intimation, was given by the owner at the earliest opportunity he may accept non-operation for a period not exceeding three days even when permit has not been deposited in advance. The provisions would make it clear that the authorities are required to decide the objections on the foundation of unforeseen circumstances. It does not appear from the Revenue Recovery Certificate or the demands raised by the Department that the petitioner's intimations given to the Department were taken into consideration or his applications were ever considered and decided. The provisions would make it clear that the authorities are required to decide the objections on the foundation of unforeseen circumstances. It does not appear from the Revenue Recovery Certificate or the demands raised by the Department that the petitioner's intimations given to the Department were taken into consideration or his applications were ever considered and decided. As the petitioner contends that right in time he had made submission to the Depm1ment under the second proviso of Rule 3-A and the Department was liable to decide the applications, it was incumbent upon the respondent to pass necessary orders. The petition deserves to and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to decide the applications filed by the petitioners. Till final orders are passed on the representations/applications submitted by the petitioner; the Revenue Recovery Certificate (Annexure-F) shall remain in abeyance. The petition, to the extent indicated above, is allowed. No costs. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.