LOKENDRA VERMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

(2.) Brief facts, of the case, are that petitioner has engaged Excavator (Hyrolic Machine) for procurement of raw material. Petitioner also used to engage several agricultural equipment including tractor and J.C. B. for procurement of raw material. It is alleged that respondent no. 6 seized the Excavator (Hyrolic Machine) while engaged in procurement of raw material. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid machine does not fall under the category of 'Motor Vehicle'; but, despite the fact that the aforesaid machine is not registered under Motor Vehicle Act, the respondent no. 6 forcibly chalaned and seized the machine in question without authority of law and kept the same in the premises of Police Station Kotwali, Manglaur, District Haridwar. Aggrieved from the action of the respondent no. 6, petitioner applied for release of aforementioned machine through his employee Surendra Kumar before the respondent no. 5. Thereafter, respondent no. 5 release the vehicle in question vide its release order dated 01.02.2017, only after compounding the offence under Motor Vehicle Act by imposition of Fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Petitioner submitted the aforesaid order before the respondent no. 6; but, respondent no. 6 illegally refused to release the aforesaid machine.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the respondent no. 5 passed the order for release of Excavator (Hyrolic Machine), the respondent no. 6 is bound to release the same.