BAIJ NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition along with a misc. application has been filed seeking mandamus to direct the release of the petitioner's tractor and trolley bearing No. UP-53 AD4901 in favour of the petitioner. An application with the same prayer seems to have been moved before the A.C.J.M., Gorakhpur, who disposed of the application without passing any specific order. The A.C.J.M's order dated16.8.2012 has also been assailed in the present petition.

(2.) I have heard petitioner's counsel at length and also learned A.G.A., who has filed his counter affidavit today. Perused the record. The facts germane for the purpose of deciding the present petition appear to be like this. The petitioner is the registered owner of a tractor no.UP-53 AD4901. The same was taken in possession by the S.D.M. and was sent to the concerned police Station on the allegation of its involvement in some illegal mining. Since the day of its seizure i.e. on 11.5.2012 about a year has been elapsed, but the tractor has been kept standing at the police station. The petitioner's counsel states that the tractor, exposed to all natural corrosion and damage has been reduced to a junk. As per annexure-1 to the petition, the petitioner moved before the A.C.J.M's Court an application seeking release of this vehicle on which a report was called up from the concerned police station. The police report has been annexued as annexure-4 to the writ petition, according to which this tractor was reported to have no connection with any crime registered in the police Station. It was also reported by the concerned Police station that the vehicle has not been detained in the police Station in connection with any crime. After receiving the same report the lower court concerned passed the impugned order on 16.8.2012 whereby the learned A.C.J.M disposed of the application by just making an observation that no offence regarding this vehicle in question is registered in police Station. The order of the A.C.J.M is some what vague and non speaking and is more in the nature of a refusal to pass an order regarding the disposal of the vehicle or its release.

(3.) It has been pointed out by the petitioner's counsel that on the same date by the same S.D.M. at the same point of time another tractor was also seized and sent to the police Station with similar allegation as has been alleged against the petitioner's vehicle. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State also it has been averred in para-3 that the petitioner's tractor was actually brought to the police station along with another tractor no. UP-53 HE9112 with illegally excavated sand on it. There seem to be some confusion about the number of another tractor but that is not very material for decision of this petition. It has been submitted that the owner of another tractor had also moved an application seeking release of his tractor before the concerned Magistrate, but the same was also refused by the concerned court by passing a similar order as has been passed in connection with the petitioner's vehicle in question. It has been brought to the court's notice that being aggrieved by the refusal of the concerned court the owner of another tractor mentioned above had approached this Court and that matter was decided by Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. in criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13098 of 2012, Smt. Manju Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others vide his order dated 16.10.2012. The said order has been annexed as annexure-5 to the writ petition.