Jharkhand High Court
Nagendra Tiwary vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 24 July, 2012
Bench: Chief Justice, Jaya Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 176 of 2011 Nagendra Tiwary ..... Appellant Versus State of Jharkhand and ors. .... Respondnets CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE JAYA ROY ....
For the Appellant :M/s Himanshu Kr. Mehta, A.K.Amar & M.Patra,Advs.
For the State : JC to G.P.I.
Dated24
th
July, 2012
By Court- Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant's contention is that he surrendered his vehicle but that surrender has not been accepted by the respondents. The writ petitioner-appellant earlier preferred writ petition before this Court, wherein direction was issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's application vide order dated 11th July, 2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3050 of 2007. The petitioner's application was rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 6th June, 2008. The learned Single Judge found that four reasons have been given by the authority for rejection of the application.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a bare perusal of the writ petitioner's application-Annexure-3 will disclose that petitioner complied with the condition and the order impugned is wholly illegal.
4. However, after seeing the application-Annexure-3 filed by the writ petitioner for surrender of the vehicle, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner submitted the photostat copies of the Registration certificate, Fitness certificate and Insurance certificate as per his own application and he did not submit even the original registration certificate. Though, it is not a ground taken in the appeal but so far as other facts are concerned, there is no dispute that the accident occurred in the State of Chhatisgarh, wherein neither any information was given to the Motor Vehicle Inspector nor it was got examined and in view of the above reasons which have been given in the impugned order, we are of the 2. considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition.
5. There being no merit, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.
( Prakash Tatia, C.J. ) ( Jaya Roy, J ) G.Jha/