Judgment :- G. SIVARAJAN, J. The petitioner is a financier mainly engaged in the business of hire-purchase of motor vehicles. It is claimed that the petitioner is the owner of two Mahindra Jeeps with registration numbers KL5-A/3854 and KL5-A/1393, of which the additional 5th and 6th respondents are the registered owners. According to the petitioner they are the real owners of the said vehicles since the said vehicles are subject-matter of hire-purchase agreement with respondents 5 and 6. It is stated that the said two vehicles were repossessed by the petitioner for default in payment of instalments by the additional 5th and 6th respondents and were garaged in the premises of the additional 7th respondent for repairs and maintenance. While the said two vehicles were kept in the garage the first respondent conducted a search of the said premises and seized the said vehicles. The petitioner submitted application for release of the said vehicles before the first respondent. The same was disposed of by the fourth respondent stating that the application has to be filed before the assessing authority of the seventh respondent. Subsequently, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext. P8 order the second respondent disposed of the same by Ext. P10 order. It is, this order which is challenged in this Original Petition. 2. Shri M. N. Sukumaran Nair, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the second respondent had erroneously rejected the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not established the ownership of the two vehicles. He submitted that the petitioner has got the documents to show that the petitioner is the owner of the said two vehicles and that the second respondent did not consider the same. 3. I have heard Shri George K. George, Addl. Central Government standing counsel (Taxes) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. He submitted that according to the Department the additional 7th respondent is the owner of the vehicles and the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show the ownership of the vehicles. 4. I have considered the matter. Admittedly there is no material other than the presumption to show that the two vehicles which have been seized from the premises of the additional 7th respondent are belonging to him. It is also an admitted position that the two vehicles are seized from the garage. 4. I have considered the matter. Admittedly there is no material other than the presumption to show that the two vehicles which have been seized from the premises of the additional 7th respondent are belonging to him. It is also an admitted position that the two vehicles are seized from the garage. When the petitioner claimed ownership of the two vehicles and was prepared to adduce evidence regarding the ownership, certainly the second respondent ought to have considered the question of ownership of two vehicles in the light of the documents to be produced by it. 5. I am of the view that the second respondent has not considered the claim of the petitioner properly and legally. The registered owners of the vehicles are represented in this proceedings and they did not raise any contention against the claim of the petitioner. I do not propose to deal with the matter any further in this proceedings. I quash Ext. P10 order passed by the second respondent. I direct the second respondent to consider the matter afresh with notice and opportunity to the petitioner, the additional 5th and 6th respondents and also the additional 7th respondent and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is open to the petitioner to produce all documents including the details regarding the hire-purchase such as payment of the instalments, etc. to establish the ownership of the vehicles before the CIT at the time of hearing. Since the petitioner claims that it is the owner of the two vehicles mentioned above and since the registered owners of the vehicles did not raise any claim and in the absence of any material at present to show that the additional 7th respondent is the owner of the said vehicles, there will be a direction to the first and fourth respondents to release the said two vehicles to the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the said two vehicles to be fixed by the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam. This will safeguard the interest of all parties. Original Petition is disposed of as above.