JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner being Ex-serviceman had purchased a Tata Sumo Vehicle from a person in Haryana with Haryana Motor Vehicles Registration Number HR-12-B- 5276. While applying for a No Objection Certificate at Rohtak he sought a certificate in favour of DTO, Madhubani where he had intended to get the vehicle registered. When he came to Bihar, though he is a resident of Madhubani, he states that his business being at Bhagawanpur in Muzaffarpur District he thought it proper to make an application for registration of the vehicle in Bihar at Muzaffarpur alongwith the NOC granted by the Registering Authority, Rohtak dated 18.8.2003, though issued in favour of DTO, Madhubani alongwith all the required papers. He made an application on 14.10,2003 before the Registering Authority, Muzaffarpur to register his vehicle. Alongwith the application made at Muzaffarpur he filed an affidavit dated 14.10.2003 clearly stating that the NOC was granted in favour of DTO, Madhubani but he had intended to get the vehicle registered at Muzaffarpur. He accordingly made application to Registering Authority, Muzaffarpur also enclosing therewith Forms-29 & 30 being notice to transfer of ownership of vehicle and report of transfer of ownership of the vehicle. He also deposited entry fee, late fee, tax discrepancy all at Muzaffarpur and waited for being granted registration from there. His papers were then returned to him in August 2005 asking him to make application to DTO, Madhubani as NOC granted by DTO, Rohtak was addressed to DTO, Madhubani. He had deposited tax of subsequent years at Muzaffarpur itself. Having withdrawn all the papers from Muzaffarpur he again paid transfer fee of Rs. 160 at Madhubani on 8.8.2005 and deposited all papers at Madhubani, DTO Office for registration. Having apparently found ail papers in order the DTO, Madhubani then wrote letter No. 167 dated 7.9.2005 to the Registering Authority, Rohtak clearly stating that on basis of NOC dated 18.8.2003 granted by the Registering Authority, Rohtak petitioner with all necessary papers made application for registration of his vehicle at Madhubani and the same was being registered, as such, in case the Registering Authority, Rohtak had any objection he should intimate the same within one month to the Registering Authority-cum-DTO, Madhubani. This is found as Annexure-4 to the writ petition and is accepted by the Respond- ent-DTO, Madhubani in his counter affidavit, as a genuine and correct document. This is found as Annexure-4 to the writ petition and is accepted by the Respond- ent-DTO, Madhubani in his counter affidavit, as a genuine and correct document. By this time, the period for which road tax that the petitioner had deposited at Muzaffarpur its validity was expiring and the petitioner had not yet got registration at Madhubani but being a law abiding citizen he wanted to discharge his liability in time and accordingly for the period 2005- 06 he again deposited the taxes at Muzaffarpur. 2. Now in 2006 finding everything in order the DTO, Madhubani directed him to deposit the road tax for the year 2007-08 at Madhubani and similarly for 2008-09 at Madhubani but the vehicle was not being registered at Madhubani nor the registration papers were being returned. Petitioner then got a legal notice sent from the lawyer to the District Transport Officer, Madhubani on 10.6.2008 requiring him to grant the registration certificate. 3. It may be mentioned here that petitioner had intermittently made application in the Office of DTO, Madhubani on 8.8.2005, he made another application on 1.9.2006 as well to enable him to pay taxes there which was allowed. 4. Now, after five years, for the first time DTO, Madhubani points out that there are discrepancies in his application. Now, in response to the legal notice as aforesaid these documents were demanded as a cover up of an excuse to explain the delay. It is not such a case because if the documents as demanded were not filed originally, it is surprising how the DTO took up the proceedings and wrote to the Rohtak Authorities specifically mentioning therein that all documents were filed for transfer which was being effected. Not a chit of paper has been brought on record on behalf of DTO, Madhubani over a period of three years from 2005 to 2008 that he made any communication to the petitioner demanding documents. 5. Now, coming to the documents as required. The DTO now after three years demands the original registration book. It is well known that no application for transfer of owner ship without registration book is entertained in absence of the original owner-book. How and why in absence of original owner-book DTO wrote to the Rohtak, Authorities for confirming the NOC is not explained. The DTO now after three years demands the original registration book. It is well known that no application for transfer of owner ship without registration book is entertained in absence of the original owner-book. How and why in absence of original owner-book DTO wrote to the Rohtak, Authorities for confirming the NOC is not explained. If the original owner-book was not filed then how DTO permitted petitioner to deposit the tax for two consecutive years. If the same was not deposited alongwith application why it was not demanded immediately thereafter and the demand was made only for the first time when legal notice is issued after three years. It is evident that when original application was filed this document was there and has been made to disappear for the reasons this Court cannot take cognizance. Even assuming that the original registration book was not submitted earlier, what stopped the DTO, Madhubani from immediately demanding it in writing rather than wait for 3 year for a legal notice and then demand. There is no explanation for the same. 6. So far as other four documents are concerned, the petitioner submits that even after receipt of this letter he went to deposit these papers but being original documents he wanted receipt from the office because the office which was already hostile to him could later disown the same. The office refused to grant him receipt. 7. This court may point out that motor vehicles tax is a tax payable to the State of Bihar. It is not a tax which is payable to any particular District Transport Officer or to any particular District. If there is liability to motor vehicle tax for a particular year and the same has been paid at any place in Bihar in respect of the vehicle in question that would be valid. Petitioner has already deposited tax at Muzaffarpur. As petitioner has deposited tax at Muzaffarpur, he will not be required to deposit the tax again for the said period in respect of the said vehicle at Madhubani. If these four papers were required why did not DTO write to the petitioner himself? Why did he went for three years to come up with this demand and that to in response to a legal notice. This shows callous regard for individual rights by superior authorities, a clear abuse of power. If these four papers were required why did not DTO write to the petitioner himself? Why did he went for three years to come up with this demand and that to in response to a legal notice. This shows callous regard for individual rights by superior authorities, a clear abuse of power. It is then submitted that petitioner is making a mountain out of a mole hill. He could have easily gone there and submitted four documents. I do not agree to this argument for the simple reason that if it was as simple as suggested by the learned State Counsel the petitioner would not have wasted his time and money in coming all the way to Patna and institute these proceedings. He was being made to run without a demand of any paper or without effecting the transfer. With what purpose is not open to this Court to speculate or take note off. Now when he wanted to deposit original papers no receipts were being given. 8. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to submit the four papers as demanded, keeping in view the observations made above and I direct that within ten days of submission of the papers aforesaid registration would be duly done and registration book would duly delivered to the petitioner. 9. This writ application is thus allowed. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the State Transport Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Transport, Bihar, Patna to evolve a system to stop undue harassment to citizens in this regards.