RAM LAL YADAV Vs. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE LKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. N. Gupta, J, According to the petitioner, he is the owner of a tractor bearing registration No. U. P. 32 T/1154. On 29- 7-1998, petitioner's aforesaid direc tor alongwith trolley was interested by the Assistant Road Transport Officer (Enfor cement) is Gomti Nagar, Lucknow City. The said vehicle was seized under the order 5assed under sub-section (1) of Section 07 of the Motor Vehicle Act on the ground that the trolley was unregistered, registration certificate of the tractor could not be produced and it was not insured and the certificate for smoke emission (pollution control) was not available. It was also mentioned that the tractor and trollely were engaged in transporting earth from one place to another place on payment. The tractor was driven by a person having no licence. He did not have permit for using tractor for transporting goods from one place to another on hire. The petitioner was thus, evading payment of goods tax and road tax. According to the petitioner, he approached the Transport Authorities but they asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,500/-as goods tax and passenger tax which had been denied in the counter-affidavit by the Additional Regional Transport Officer (Enforce ment ). The tractor alongwith trolley are lying at the police-station the direction of transport authorities, who had neither sent any challan to the Magistrate nor have passed any further orders. This writ peti tion has been preferred with the prayer that the opposite parties i. e. transport authorities be directed to submit challan before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Luck-now. Petitioner had approached the Magistrate for release of vehicle but the Chief Judicial Magistrate by means of his order dated 7-8-1998 rejected the applica tion of the petitioner on the ground that no criminal case was pending before him.

(2.) THERE appears to be no justifica tion for the transport authorities to keen the vehicle of the petitioner seized without further action in the matter. They have neither sent the challan to the court of Magistrate concerned nor have taken fur ther action in the matter. Since the vehicle has been seized under sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the remedy of the petitioner was to have ap proached before the transport authorities with relevant documents for release of vehicle and the transport authorities after verification of such documents, may release the vehicle subject to the condition as may be imposed as has been provided under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act which seems to be silent as to what further action may be taken in the matter if the petitioner does not approach the transport authorities as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act. However, it does not mean that the transport athorities shall keep the vehicle seized indifnetely. If the petitioner has committed the offence under the Motor Vehicle Act such a driving the same without driving licence, without permit arid without registration, the action which can be taken by the Transport authorities is to send the Challan to the Court of Magistrate concerned and to realize road tax or good tax.