# Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 600
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-04-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19793 of 2010
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, Virendra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pawan-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41640
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section 207Ceasure of Vehicle by A.R.T.O.-Release
application pendency Since long-as per
ACJM report vehicle not wanted in any
offence-ARTO
directed
to
take
appropriate decision within 15 days.

Held: Para 6

Here in this case before us, since no
complaint seems to have been filed by
the
Transport
Authority
before
the
Magistrate competent to try the case,
therefore, it is incumbent upon the
Transport Authority to take a decision
either to release the motor vehicle
subject to furnishing the security to his
satisfaction by the petitioner or to take
the decision as to whether any offence is
committed
and
the
offence
is
compoundable and the petitioner is
ready to compound or to file a complaint
before the Magistrate competent to try
the case pertaining to the offence if
found committed with regard to the
vehicle concerned.
Case law discussed:
1994 AWC Pg. 1754
2 All] Pawan Kumar V State of U.P. and another
601

## Text

600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
mentioned it was stated that the complaints
had been received that it was possible to
launder/remove or clear such "marker"
from kerosene. Thus, it was not that the
test was defective but because it was found
that initially it was quite effective in
detecting adulteration in petrol and diesel
but subsequently as human brain was very
inventive, complaints had been received
that it was possible to remove the existing
marker from the kerosene.

The last contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
dealership cannot be terminated on
irrelevant
or
non-existent
grounds.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in Harbans Lal Sahnia
(supra). In this case the Supreme Court
noticed that general allegations had been
made by the Corporation against the
dealer. In the present case, there are
specific allegations against the petitioner.
This decision, therefore, does not help the
petitioner."

24. We have perused the impugned
order dated 14.3.2009. The impugned
order refers to relevant clauses of the
agreement and has considered the reply
submitted by the petitioners. All the points
raised in the reply by the petitioners were
considered and dealt with. We do not find
any error in the impugned order which
may warrant any interference by this Court
in exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed.

Parties shall bear their own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTIION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19793 of 2010

Pawan Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi
Smt. Archana Tyagi

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section 207Ceasure of Vehicle by A.R.T.O.-Release
application pendency Since long-as per
ACJM report vehicle not wanted in any
offence-ARTO
directed
to
take
appropriate decision within 15 days.

Held: Para 6

Here in this case before us, since no
complaint seems to have been filed by
the
Transport
Authority
before
the
Magistrate competent to try the case,
therefore, it is incumbent upon the
Transport Authority to take a decision
either to release the motor vehicle
subject to furnishing the security to his
satisfaction by the petitioner or to take
the decision as to whether any offence is
committed
and
the
offence
is
compoundable and the petitioner is
ready to compound or to file a complaint
before the Magistrate competent to try
the case pertaining to the offence if
found committed with regard to the
vehicle concerned.
Case law discussed:
1994 AWC Pg. 1754
2 All] Pawan Kumar V State of U.P. and another
601
(Delivered by Hon'ble Virendra Singh, J.)

1. By way of this writ petition, the
petitioner has sought a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no. 2 (ARTO,
Saharanpur)
to
decide
the
release
application dated 27.02.2010 filed by the
petitioner
expeditiously
as
soon
as
possible.

2. Heard Smt. Archana Tyagi,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned standing counsel on behalf of the
respondents.

3. The petitioner's Vehicle No. UP12 T-1526 was seized by the ARTO,
Saharanpur on 30.01.2010. The release
application was filed by the petitioner on
27.02.2010 which is said to be still
pending disposal before the ARTO,
Saharanpur. It is submitted that the
petitioner's vehicle has been detained as
per provisions u/s 207(1) of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 and U.P. Motor
Vehicle Tax Act, 1987 by the Transport
Authority. The petitioner is ready to
furnish
security
before
the
ARTO,
Saharanpur, but even then, the ARTO,
Saharanpur has not released the vehicle of
the petitioner. An application for release
of the vehicle was also filed by the
petitioner before the ACJM, Saharanpur.
The learned ACJM, Saharanpur had
called for the report from the authority
concnerned and found that no criminal
case is filed in the aforesaid matter and
therefore, he did not pass any order on
the release application for the vehicle.

4.

Learned
standing
counsel
submitted that the vehicle is detained due
to violation of the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and unless the
petitioner appears before the Transport
Authority to deposit the compound fees as
well as the additional tax imposed as per
report dated 23.02.2010 by the ARTO,
Saharanpur, the authoirty concerned is not
under obligation to release the vehicle.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Jugal Kishore vs. State of U.P.
and Another reported in 1994 AWC Pg.
1754 has laid down the law in this regard
as follows:-

"The clear cut and unambiguous
position under the law that emerges and
admits of no contradiction is that on a
vehicle being seized and detained by a
police officer or other person authorized in
this behalf by the State Government on his
having reason to believe that one or other
of the offences specified punishable under
Section 192 of the Act has been or is
being committed, he has to consider first
for temporary release of vehicle subject to
owners
furnishing
security
to
his
satisfaction within reasonable period of
time. If the vehicle is not released
temporarily the police officer or person
authorized has to decide the question as to
whether the owner has committed any
offence is to be compounded. This
exercise has also to be completed within
reasonable period of time. When the
police officer or authorized person does
not release the vehicle so seized on being
satisfied that an offence has been
committed or refuses to compound the
offence, he is duty bound to complete the
investigation/inquiry within a reasonable
time. What is a reasonable time in a given
case would depend on the peculiar facts
and circumstances of that case and to file a
complaint
before
the
Magistrate
competent to try the case and the
Magistrate on the complaint being so laid
before him would have the jurisdiction to
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
release the vehicle pending trial as
provided under Section 451 CrPC and
later on to pass an order as to the final
disposal of the vehicle as provided under
Section 452 CrPC at the conclusion of the
trial. If the complaint is not laid before the
Magistrate within a reasonable time, it is
always open to the owner of the vehicle to
approach the Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution. The petitioners in all the
writ petitions can have their remedy under
the law in the light of our aforegoing
observations. In the end, we direct the
respondents to act in accordance with the
observations made in this judgment."

6. Here in this case before us, since
no complaint seems to have been filed by
the
Transport
Authority
before
the
Magistrate competent to try the case,
therefore, it is incumbent upon the
Transport Authority to take a decision
either to release the motor vehicle subject
to
furnishing
the
security
to
his
satisfaction by the petitioner or to take the
decision as to whether any offence is
committed
and
the
offence
is
compoundable and the petitioner is ready
to compound or to file a complaint before
the Magistrate competent to try the case
pertaining to the offence if found
committed with regard to the vehicle
concerned.

7. Hence, we find it expedient to
direct the autohrity concerned/ARTO,
Saharanpur to take a decision and to
decide the representation alleged to have
been filed by the petitioner before him
within a period of 15 days of filing this
order before him.

8. The writ petition is disposed of
with the aforesaid observations.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21008 of 2010

Devendra Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anupam Kulshrestha

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Somil Srivastava
Sri Sahab Tiwari
C.S.C.

Indian
Stamp
Act-Section
33Determination
of
stamp
duty-loan
advance for establishing cold storageDocument executed for purpose of loanpetitioner
claimed
exemption
from
stamp duty under notification dated
10.06.98-authorities below refused the
defence of petitioner as cold storage in
not within meaning of "agriculturist or
Agricultural purpose"-remission as per
notification above not permissible.

Held: Para 6

The instrument used for obtaining loan or
financial assistance for establishing a cold
storage is neither an instrument for
acquisition of tractor or machinery relating
to agricultural activity nor is an instrument
executed by an agriculturist within the
meaning of the aforesaid notification.,
According to Explanation I to the aforesaid
notification the expression 'agriculturist'
means a person engaged in any of the
activities specified therein. The activities
so specified does not cover the activities of
running a cold storage.
Case Law discussed:
1989 RD489