DINESHBHAI BUDHABHAI VAGHELA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, claiming to be the owner of one LMV Maxxi Jeep No. GJ 1 AZ 9968, has prayed for the following reliefs;

(2.) IT is the case on behalf of the petitioner that he is the owner of one LMV Maxxi Jeep having registration No. GJ 1 AZ 9968. IT is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the said vehicle was purchased by the petitioner for the purpose of his livelihood and he used to carry the passengers on the route between Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar and according to the petitioner on 22/07/2010 when the aforesaid vehicle was plying on the route from Gandhinagar to Ahmedabad the said vehicle was intercepted by respondent no. 9 and detained by him. According to the petitioner, after detaining the vehicle by respondent no. 9, while exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder, the vehicle in question was put under police custody at Sola Towing Station, Sola, Ahmedabad and respondent no. 9 had issued memo vide No. 3291 and No. 0063147. IT is the case on behalf of the petitioner that at the time of issuance of memo, the Officer concerned informed the petitioner that on depositing the fine with the RTO office, the vehicle would be released and the petitioner was also informed that the amount of fine would be approximately in a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 22,000/-. According to the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner could not arrange for the amount to be deposited as fine with the RTO and after some time when the petitioner approached the concerned Officer at the Sola Towing Station, Sola, Ahmedabad for the purpose of knowing the procedure for depositing the fine and to release the vehicle, surprisingly he could not find his vehicle at the Sola Towing Station, Sola Ahmedabad and when the petitioner inquired about the whereabouts of his vehicle from the concerned Officer of the Sola Towing Station, the Officer concerned informed that the vehicle has already been taken away by the owner of the vehicle. The petitioner thereafter informed the concerned Officer, who was present at the Sola Towing Station, that he himself was the owner of the vehicle in question. The petitioner also demanded the documents on the basis on which the vehicle in question has been released and the same were provided by the Officer concerned to the petitioner. On verification, the petitioner found that in the outward register some unknown person has put the signature fraudulently as owner of the vehicle in question and has got the vehicle released on the basis of the fake, false and fabricated documents. IT is the case on behalf of the petitioner that upon verification of the documents, the petitioner found that the vehicle in question has been released on the basis of the fake, false and fabricated documents and possession of the vehicle in question has been handed over to the stranger by the respondent without verifying the documents of the vehicle. The petitioner therefore made complaint dated 16/11/2010 to the respondents requesting to inquire about the offense committed by the respondent, erring Officer of the Police Department. The petitioner also lodged a complaint dated 27/10/2010 and requested to inquire about the offense committed. IT is the case on behalf of the petitioner that without investigating into the matter, the erring Officer himself lodged the complaint before the Sola Police Station, being C.R. No. 240/2010. As the custody of the vehicle in question of the petitioner has been given to a stranger on the basis of the fake and false documents and without taking due care and/or verifying the documents, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) IT is further submitted that so far as prevention of such an incident in future is concerned, he is proposing to issue necessary instruction and guidelines to all the concerned authority as mentioned in the affidavit dated 06/01/2011 and, therefore, it is requested to consider the above.