Uttarakhand High Court
Arif Kha vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 19 June, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 UTR 783
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1132 of 2018
Arif Kha. .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others. ...Respondents
Mr. Zafar Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bohra, Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand.
Dated: June 19, 2018
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no. 3 to hear and decide the release application of petitioner for releasing his vehicle/Truck No. UP 25 BT 5278 as early as possible within time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the Truck bearing registration no. UP 25 BT 5278. It is stated that, on 10.4.2018, the said vehicle of the petitioner after loading RBM (Rodhi) (14.5) Tons from Meghraj Garg Mahadev Stone Crusher Village Dahbura, Tehsil Kashipur was going to Bareilly and for the said RBM due royalty was paid. It is also submitted that when the said truck was reached in the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Bazpur, the police officials stopped the vehicle of the petitioner and when the petitioner's driver shown royalty receipt, the police officials stated that they have nothing to do with the royalty receipt and the petitioner's driver has to pay 2 Rs.5,000/-, if he want to move further with his vehicle. When the petitioner's driver showed his inability the police seized the vehicle of the petitioner and without doing weight of the vehicle, the police challaned the vehicle of the petitioner by alleging that the petitioner's driver failed to show the documents of the said RBM and further alleging that the vehicle appeared to be overweight and the said vehicle was taken to police station premises. Thereafter, petitioner moved a release application before the respondent no.3 on 18.4.2018; but, no action was taken. Again on 16.5.2018, the petitioner moved an application for release of his vehicle; but, till date the respondent no.3 has not decided the aforesaid applications of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. He also submitted that the police officials in illegal and arbitrary manner, without conducting weight of the vehicle, challaned the same as overweight.
4. Considering this above-stated facts, it is directed that application filed by the petitioner before the Competent Court/Competent Authority, who is competent to take decision, for the release of the vehicle shall be decided strictly in accordance with law, within a period of ten days from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. The Competent Court/Competent Authority shall satisfy itself that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle is not required in any other offence. The Competent Court/Competent Authority will be at 3 liberty to impose such condition, which it deems fit in the matter.
5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(V.K. Bist, J.) 19.06.2018 Arpan