ORDER Seeking a direction upon the respondents to dispose of the representation for exemption of road tax with respect to the vehicle being Registration No. BR-09H-6122, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The vehicle in question was granted permit for Darbhanga to Ranchi route with effect from 16.05.2012 for a period of 5 years and tax was paid by the petitioner. A First Information Report being Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 171 of 2012 was registered under section 414 of IPC and under Section 30(II) of Coal Mines Act and under section 33 of Indian Forest Act, on the allegation that illegal coal being transported on the Bhawani bus. The vehicle was seized with coal and a confiscation proceeding was initiated. Vide order dated 09.02.2013 passed in Confiscation Case No. 93 of 2012, the learned court dropped the confiscation proceeding. The said vehicle was released on 18.02.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted application before the District Transport Officer-respondent no. 3 for exempting road tax between the period 01.07.2012 and 18.02.2013 however, no decision has been taken by the respondent no. 3 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is not involved in illegal transportation of coal in any manner whatsoever, his bus was illegally seized by the police. The said bus was released on 18.02.2013 and thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for exempting road tax during the said period. Referring to Section 19 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994, the learned counsel submits that since the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 18.03.2013, a direction may be given to the respondents for exemption of road tax in terms of Section 19 of the Act of 1994. 5. Per contra, Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, J.C. to Sr. S.C.II appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that since the petitioner did not give prior intimation of temporary discontinuation of the use of the vehicle, the provision under Section 19 is not applicable in the present case. It is further submitted that Section 17(3) provides that in the absence of an undertaking as contemplated under Section 17(1), every motor vehicle is liable to be taxed. She has relied on the decisions in “Upendra Rai Vs. It is further submitted that Section 17(3) provides that in the absence of an undertaking as contemplated under Section 17(1), every motor vehicle is liable to be taxed. She has relied on the decisions in “Upendra Rai Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.”, reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 44 and “Mahendra Singh Rekhraj Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.”, reported in 2009 (2) JCR 118 (Jhr). 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. Section 17 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994 deals with prior intimation of temporary discontinuance of use of a vehicle. It provides that whenever any motor vehicle becomes incapable of use due to disability, the owner shall on or before the date of expiry of the period on which the tax has been paid, furnish an undertaking duly signed and verified in the prescribed proforma before the taxing officer. Admittedly, a prior intimation in prescribed proforma has not been submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner approached the respondent no. 3 only after the release of bus on 18.02.2013. Section 19 of the said Act refers to an undertaking delivered under subsection (1) of Section 17 and Section 17 would be applicable only in cases in which an undertaking as contemplated under Section 17(1) of the Act has been furnished. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand, Section 17(3) makes it mandatory for an owner of a motor vehicle to pay tax in which prior intimation under Section 17(1) has not been submitted before the taxing officer. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.