CHHOTU RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, herein, has claimed the following reliefs:

(2.) It is not in dispute that truck No. HP-24-4617 had been confiscated to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide order dated 11.7.2001 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog. Appeal preferred by Badri Ram, Ex-owner of the truck, against the aforesaid confiscation order stood dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi vide judgment dated 3.5.2002 (Annexure P-2). The truck was thereafter auctioned in a public auction and the Petitioner being the highest bidder and having deposited the bid money, the Authorised Officer/Divisional Forest Officer ordered the release of the truck to the Petitioner vide order dated 5.2.2003 (Annexure P-3/A) and the Petitioner took possession of the truck on 12.2.2003 vide Annexure P-4. Thereafter, he got it repaired to make it roadworthy after spending considerable amount. However, the Registration Certificate and other Documents of the truck were not handed over to the Petitioner with the result that the truck could not be aplied, therefore, he made an application (Annexure P-24) to the Authorised Officer for delivery of such documents including Registration Certificate to him. Thereupon, the Authorised Officer vide his letter dated 3.11.2003 (Annexure P-25) requested Respondent No. 5 to "change the registration certificate and other documents of the said vehicle" in the name of the Petitioner. Respondent No. 5, vide letter dated 22.11.2003 (Annexure P-27) informed Respondent No. 3 that the truck is under hypothecation with a finance company, therefore, the truck could not be transferred in the name of any person unless said hypothecation is cancelled and an NOC is obtained. Respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 19.12.2003 (Annexure P-28) reiterated the request for transfer of the documents of the truck in favour of the Petitioner on the premises that since the truck having been confiscated was State property and the Petitioner is the auction-purchaser, therefore, no formalities like getting NOC etc. are required to be complied with by the Petitioner. However, Respondent No. 5 did not take any action in the matter and such inaction on its part is illegal, unconstitutional and bad in law. Hence the present petition.

(3.) The Respondents did not choose to file replies to the petition.