KAMESHWAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ applications have been filed by the same petitioner on account of his two vehicles-Fixed Container Trucks-having been intercepted and seized at the Toll Plaza on Hazipur side of the Ganga Bridge on 18.10.2013 and 17.10.2013 respectively by the respondent Motor Vehicle Inspector, Patna on alleged violations of various provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The stand of the petitioner is that the vehicles were intercepted and fined earlier at Gopalganj. Hence, it could not be fined again. It is also a stand of the petitioner that on demand the driver and petitioner, who was also on accompanying, had produced all documents, but the Officer concerned was not satisfied and demanded illegal gratification apart from the fine. In the writ petition, it is denied that the driver and the petitioner or the vehicle itself had violated any provisions of the Act as alleged in the seizure list. It is stated that when the petitioner reached the concerned court to get the interim release of the vehicles he came to know that, till then, no report or documents had been submitted by the respondents to the court in respect of search and seizure of the vehicles. Hence, it is contended that act of the respondents was illegal and without any authority of law and, therefore, search and seizure was without jurisdiction. Through a supplementary affidavit, petitioner has brought on record the necessary documents in respect of valid plying of the vehicles in accordance with law. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Motor Vehicle Inspector himself. It is stated that when the vehicles were intercepted, the driver of the vehicle did not produce relevant papers on demand. It is also said that on search the vehicles were found short of certain requirements of law in many respects including manipulation in the structure of the vehicles themselves. In the second writ application, photographs of the vehicle have also been annexed with the counter affidavit. It is stated that on demand the drivers had sought for one week time to produce necessary papers and to pay fine for release of the vehicles which they failed to do. Accordingly, the prosecution report was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazipur on 25.10.2013 and the vehicles were placed in the custody of the court..

(2.) Petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit in the second case. With the rejoinder, a recent common order of this Court in identical matters has been annexed as Annexure-5.

(3.) The order, as contained in Annexure-5, is a reasoned and detailed one passed by this Court in which several directions were issued. This Court can do no better than reproduce the directions issued in the said order here in his case also and hold that the said directions, are applicable and have to be followed in this case also:--