ABDUL SAMAD MULLA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the order passed by the 1 st respondent in No. I. N. D. CR 162/2006 - 07 dated 9 - 2 - 2007 (Annexure - F) whereby the 1st respondent has imposed a line of Rs. 25,000/ - each against the petitioners on the ground that petitioners were transporting iron ore illegally in their lorries bearing registration No. KA - 25/8399 and KA - 22/5786.

(2.) THE petitioners contend that they are the owners of the lorries in question and that the lorries were employed for transportation of iron of M/s. Sesa Goa Limited Company from Megalahalli, chitradurga Taluk to Bellikere port at Karwar Taluk. The case of the petitioners is that they are the holders of the valid permits issued by respondents 3 and 4 for transporation of Iron Ore. Petitioners have produced copy of the permits at Annexures - A, B, C and D respectively. It is contended that the M/s. Sesa Goa Limited Company is the permit holder to transport the Iron Ore from Megalahalli to Bellikere Port. The permits were granted to the petitioner on 3 - 2 - 2007 at 4. 40 p. m. and 4. 44 p. m. respectively for a period of 30 hours from the date and time at which they were issued. According to the petitioners permits expire on 4 - 2 - 2007 at 10. 40 p. m. and 10. 44 p. m. respectively. The petitioners further contend that on 3 - 2 - 2007 after loading the Iron ore at Megalahalli, the lorries departed at 4. 40 p. m. On the way the 1 st petitioner's was lorry stoped near Malappana Hatti due to some mechanical problem. The 2nd petitioner's lorry which was following the 1st petitioner's lorry was stopped to help the driver of the 1st petitioner's vehicle. At that time, the 2nd respondent came to the spot and without verifying the permits, seized the vehicles and submitted a report to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondents has passed the impugned order imposing a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - each against the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners contends that the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing the vehicle is contrary to law. It is contended that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to seize the vehicles. It is further contended that the petitioners could not remove the vehicle within 30 hours because of the reasons beyond their control. The 2nd respondent without verifying the documents and without assigning any reasons, has seized the vehicles and the 1 st respondent has levied penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - each without the authority of law.