MASTAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a driver of the transport carrier, has prayed for a declaration that the orders of the second and third respondents at exhibits B and C detaining the goods which he carried in his lorry on 4th April, 1977, as being illegal and consequentially to quash the same. He has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1, 2 and 3 to return the goods which they have detained as noted in exhibits B and C respectively.

(2.) The facts leading to this petition may briefly be stated as follows :

(3.) At the relevant time, the petitioner was an employee of Raghu Venkateswara Transport, the proprietor of which is one Shri Adi Murthy. On 3rd April, 1977, the petitioner was entrusted by his employer with a load of steel furniture consisting of 15 steel almirahs, 18 steel racks, 19 steel trays for being transported under invoices Nos. 112, 121, 122 and 123 bearing even date and issued by M/s. Venus Steel Industries, Bangalore, and under invoice No. 114 dated 3rd April, 1977, of one M/s. Venkateswara Industries, Bangalore, altogether valued at about Rs. 14,600. These were consigned to certain Government offices in Hassan and Mangalore Districts. When the petitioner reached the check post on Tumkur Road (National Highway No. 4) he was checked by the third respondent at the check post on the said highway. It was found that the petitioner did not have in his possession certain documents which are required to be had in his possession in terms of sub-section (2) of section 28A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the result, the third respondent imposed penalty under the provisions of the Act which was paid by the petitioner. Even after payment of penalty, the petitioner was denied transit. But the goods he was carrying, namely, articles of steel furniture, were detained at the check post and were not released to him. Therefore, aggrieved by the action, he has questioned the legality inter alia contending that the authorities under the Act had no power whatsoever to detain the articles in question after the penalty had been paid and therefore the further order of 4th April, 1977, as per exhibit B to the petition, that detention is necessary for purposes of further investigation, as an illegal seizure without the authority of law.