ORDER Writ petition by M/s. K.S.F.C. - a State-owned Financial Corporation under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, who have brought upon themselves certain unwanted and avoidable liabilities such as the tax payable in respect of a motor vehicle, for the purchase of which the institution had financed a borrower and had seized the vehicle for non-payment of the borrowed amount, way back in the year 1994 i.e., on 24-3-1994. After such seizure it appears the vehicle had been parked in the factory premises of another unit, also seized by the Corporation and had filed a non-user report in Form 30 with effect from 16-8-1999. It is also the version that the Corporation has paid the arrears of tax in respect of the vehicle prior to the seizure. 2. Petitioner-Corporation is now aggrieved by a demand raised on them to the extent of Rs. 1,35,374/- being the tax payable in respect of this vehicle, as if it was on road for the period from 1-9-1999 to 30-4-2004. 3. Such a demand was raised by the Regional Transport Officer-the 1st respondent, based on a report submitted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, that on verification at the place where the vehicle had been intimated to have been parked vehicle for the availability of the vehicle, it was not found there and therefore, the exemption from the payment of tax could not be continued in favour of the vehicle and on the premise that if the vehicle was used on road during such period, it is inevitable the petitioner, being the financier in possession/custody of the vehicle, has to pay the tax. 4. No doubt, it is true that the petitioner had been issued with a notice and the same was replied on 15-12-2003, copy at Annexure-C to the petition, but the same was not accepted and the demand raised. Petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority-the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga, who in terms of his order dated 17-12-2004 dismissed the appeal being of the view that the version of the Motor Vehicles Inspector has to be accepted as the report is by a public officer in the normal course of his functions and duties as against the version of the petitioner. The stand of the petitioner-Corporation is that vehicle in fact was at the same place etc. It is against these orders the present writ petition. 5. The stand of the petitioner-Corporation is that vehicle in fact was at the same place etc. It is against these orders the present writ petition. 5. Submission of Sri Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities have not made a proper verification; that the version of the Motor Vehicles Inspector that the vehicle was not available at the place is not correct and vehicle had remained in the same place and it continues to remain even as on today and therefore the exemption could not have been withdrawn etc. It is also the further submission of Sri Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the officials of the petitioner-Corporation are also public servants within the meaning of this express ion as it occurs in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Appellate Authority was not justified in giving weight-age only to the version of the Motor Vehicles Inspector as against the say of officials of the petitioner-Corporation; that the vehicle continues to remain in the same place where it had been reported to have been parked and not otherwise. 6. The fact as to whether the vehicle was available in the place where it had been parked or not is a pure question of fact. Though, Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner would urge that the availability of the vehicle at the place can be verified even as of now also, I do not find it is a proper exercise of the power by this Court for embarking on such enquiry, to ascertain such disputed facts in a proceeding under Article of the Constitution of India as it is essentially a disputed question of fact which is normally not examined by the writ Court. The request for appointment of a Commissioner to verify such a fact on the face of it is rejected. Writ jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction nor one to correct the questions of fact and until and unless it is shown that authorities/officers who have passed the orders have acted in a totally arbitrary manner or abused their powers, interference is not resorted to. Petitioner cannot claim any exception from imposition of the tax liability on a disputed question of fact alone. 7. Petitioner cannot claim any exception from imposition of the tax liability on a disputed question of fact alone. 7. In fact the development only shows the negligence and the careless manner of the functioning of the officers of the petitioner-Corporation, inasmuch as if the vehicle which was seized in the year 1994 has continued to remain in the same place where it had been parked in even in the year 2006, it only shows the inefficiency of the officers as undoubtedly the vehicle is not now productive nor would keeping it in a garage for such a long period enhance its value but on the other hand it can only be of junk value as of now. 8. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the vehicle had been seized in the exercise of the statutory power under Section 29 of the Act and therefore, the authorities could not have been mulcted with tax liability when such a statutory power is exercised. The argument inevitably does not stand scrutiny for the reason that the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 does not give any immunity in respect of action taken by the petitioner Corporation in exercise of the statutory power under Section 29 of the Act. If the officers are exercising such statutory powers, they should act in a more diligent and responsible manner than to leave the seized vehicle to rot and whither away after seizure rather than to realize the dues of the public sector financial corporation which is only a drain on it's resources and detriment to the public at large. 9. If the petitioner-Corporation is able to make good its stand of nonuser of the vehicle in any other proceeding they can seek for refund of the amount and not seek to get over the liability in the present proceedings only on a disputed question of fact. 10. It is for this reason I decline to interfere. It is open to the petitioner to make good such disputed facts before such other forum if the vehicle in question was not used on road during the relevant period. 11. In all other respects, writ petition is dismissed.