MS PARAVEJ CONTRACTOR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondent no. 5 to release the illegally detained J.C.B.

bearing registration no. UK-17CA-1222, forthwith.â€​

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a contractor, who uses to provide J.C.B. machine for procurement of soil

for Brick Kiln Industry. It is alleged that petitioner owns a J.C.B., bearing registration No. UK-17CA-1222, which was engaged for procurement of

soil on 04.05.2018 through driver, namely, Tamrez. According to the petitioner, on 04.05.2018, when employees of petitioner were procuring the soil

at the site of Brick Kiln owned by the petitioner, police personnel of respondent no. 5 illegally seized the said J.C.B. and the same was booked for

offences committed under the Motor Vehicles Act bearing Challan No. 16674 dated 04.05.2018. Against the Challan dated 04.05.2018, petitioner

filed release application before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st, Roorkee, District Haridwar. According to the petitioner, learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st, Roorkee, District Haridwar called the report from respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 5 submitted his report before the said Court

only with regard to commission of offence under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. On 10.05.2018, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st, Roorkee,

District Haridwar allowed the release application by getting deposition of fine for the offences of Motor Vehicle Act and directed to release the same

by observing that presently no other offence is pending against the petitioner. It is alleged that, despite the order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st, Roorkee, District Haridwar, the respondent no. 5 is not releasing the vehicle of the petitioner and is withholding the

aforesaid J.C.B. Hence, this writ petition.Â

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the fine imposed and the learned Magistrate has ordered for

the release of the said vehicle; but, despite this fact, the respondent no. 5 is not releasing the said vehicle.Â

Learned Assistant Government Advocate submitted that the said vehicle was challaned while doing the illegal mining and for not producing the

documents relating to the said vehicle.Â

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that in case the said vehicle is detained for long,

the said vehicle will get damaged and, thus, the owner has right to get the said vehicle plied. Â

Considering the above-stated facts, it is directed that in case petitioner approaches the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Manglore,

Roorkee, District Haridwar (where the said vehicle is presently detained) and produces the order of release passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

1st, Roorkee, District Haridwar alongwith the papers regarding ownership of vehicle, he will release the said vehicle as per the directions issued by the

said Magistrate, before whom the petitioner has deposited the fine imposed, in case the said vehicle is not involved in any other offence. Â

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.