DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Vs. SHOBALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. The only judgmerit delivered by the learned single Judge reads as follows:

(2.) THE above obviously is not a judicial order. THEre is absolutely no consideration why the Court is staisf ied that the vehicle which is allegedly used in crime is ordered to be released. It has become almost free for all that the moment there is a seizure, this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked and on such ex parte statements which petitioners make, orders to release the vehicles/goods are passed. It is necessary in all such cases to ask the petitioner why he has not moved the competent court or the authority before whom the seized goods or vehicles have been produced and why he has chosen to move this Court directly. It will .also be necessary in all such cases to see that a vehicle used in crime can be recycled and used again and again and unless there is some check created by the appropriate order in this behalf, release may contribute to the repetition of the crime than doing any justice. THE Court cannot justify its order unless all these aspects are borne in mind. THE power under Article 226 of the Constitution is undoubtedly very wide. But, the Courts exercise self-imposed restrictions and apply all relevant considerations which must operate in the mind of the Court while making a judicial order. We are satisfied that the impugned order is not sustainable at all. THE same is accordingly set aside. THE appeal is allowed. It shall be open to the writ petitioner - respondent to approach the appropriate authority for the appropriate order for the release of the vehicle.