Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Harendra Tiwary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 June, 2022

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 W.P.(C) No. 1844 of 2022
            1. Harendra Tiwary
            2. Prasant Bajla                                         ..... Petitioners
                                             Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Transport,
            Ranchi
            2. The Joint Transport Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of
            Jharkhand, Ranchi
            3. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Godda
            4. The District Transport Officer, Godda                 ..... Respondents
                                               -----

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

            For the Petitioners:        Mr. Sudhir Sahay
            For the State:              Mr. A.C to G.A-I
                                               -----


02/09.06.2022     The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice as

contained in memo No. No1/2021-28/2022 dated 28.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 whereby the vehicle of the petitioner No.1 bearing Registration No. NL-01G-8964 (Trailer LPS 4018) has been seized under Sections 66, 39, 40 & 47 of the M. V. Act, 1988 read with Sections 5/7/8/9/14/21/22/23/24/25 of the J.M.V.T Act, 2001 for the offenses committed by the owner as well as the driver of the said vehicle under Sections 207/177/179/192A/192(39,40,

47)/182(A) of the M. V. Act, 1988, Sections 28(1)/21(A)/22(3) of the JMV Act, 2001, read with Rule 17 of the Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 2001. After calculation of arrears of taxes and compounding of fine, it comes to Rs.18,17,950/- and at present the seized vehicle is in the custody of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners have preferred an appeal on 04.02.2022 before the respondent No.2 against the impugned seizure notice dated 28.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 as would be evident from the very first page of the said memo of appeal annexed as Annexure-5 to the present writ petition, however, the same has not yet been registered by the office of the respondent No.2.

Considering the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent No.2 is directed to verify as to whether the memo of appeal, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the present writ petition, has been filed in his office. If it is found that the same has been filed, it shall be numbered and taken up for consideration within one week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case.

Satish/-                                                          (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)