JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition have been preferred against the notices under Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 under Section 78 Sub-section 8 whereby the petitioner was called upon to submit the explanation. Hence, these writ petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed reply to the notice under Section 78(8) of the Act. In all the four writ petitions, the petitioner has deposited the entire penalty amounts as under: Particulars Amount 1. SBCWP No. 4329/2002, Shanker Lal v. State of Raj. 1,82,940 2. SBCWP No. 4330/2002, Shanker Lal v. State of Rajasthan 6,29,242 3. SBCWP No. 4407/2002, Rukman Devi v. State of Rajasthan 4,16,677 4. SBCWP No. 4406/2002, Umesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan 5,64,355 3. Thus, in lieu of the penalty, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 17,93,214/- in total. Learned counsel further submits that goods of the five trucks have already been released and one truck No. RJ-14-G-5526 was also released by the Department itself, but the remaining four trucks belonged to the petitioner have not been released. 4. In support of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments passed by this Court in the writ petitions No. 3525/2002 & 3231/2002 and Division Bench order passed in DBCWP No. 5356/2001 dated 8.11.2001. 5. On behalf of the respondent, Mr. G.S. Baphna submits that in all the petitions, trucks which are detained by the Department belongs, to the same person are indulged in transporting the goods without paying the sales tax and are habitual for evading the tax. Not only this, the details given by the petitioner was not found correct and the address is also found incorrect. 6. In support of his contention, Mr. G.S. Baphna placed reliance on the judgment reported in 1986 RLR 49 wherein this Court has held the petitioner also does not deserves any indulgence in the exercise of extra jurisdiction of this Court as pointed by the respondent No. 2 in Its reply. The petitioner has been caught several times on previous occasions also carrying goods where consignors and consignees-demand undisclosed. 7. Further, Mr. The petitioner has been caught several times on previous occasions also carrying goods where consignors and consignees-demand undisclosed. 7. Further, Mr. G.Section Baphna submits that vide order dated 22.7.2002, the assessment order has already been passed by which 30% of the total amount of the goods has been imposed on the petitioner and the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 22.7.2002. Without challenging the order dated 22.7.2002, the present petition are not maintainable and this Court does not require any indulgence to entertain such writ petition Section which are only filed against the notice and the same deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. 8. In rejoinder, Mr. Narendra Jain learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has deposited the penalty amount as demanded by the respondent and the assessment order has now been passed after filing of the writ petitions and the writ petitions have been filed against the detention of the trucks as the respondents has committed discrimination while releasing the other truck No. RJ 14-G-5526, but the petitioners trucks were not released. Mr. Jain referred provision, of Section 78(9) which is reproduced hereunder: "Section 78(9) The incharge of the check-post or the officer empowered under sub-section (3) may release the vehicle or the carrier on the payment of the amount of penalty imposed under sub-section (8) or on furnishing such security as may be directed by such Incharge or officer." And submits that the provision itself provide for release of the truck after furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Incharge or Officer and the trucks of the petitioner shall also be released under these provisions 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and after careful examination of the material available on record as well as assessment order dated 22.7.2002, I deem it proper to direct the respondents to release the trucks Nos RJ-14-G-5070, RJ-14-G-7584, RJ-14-G-7566 & RJ-14-1G-5030 after taking solvent security given by the person who belongs to Rajasthan State and is a registered dealer, equal to the penalty imposed by the final assessment order subject to the decision of the appeal with regard to each petitionWith these observations, all the four writ petition stand disposed of.Petitions Disposed of as Above. *******