MD ALI MURTAZA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was filed praying for a direction from this court to the concerned authorities for release of the petitioners Auto rickshaw in his favour and to pay him certain monetary compensation for the period of the vehicles seizure. Then realising that over the period of its long seizure the vehicle had been rendered useless, the relief claimed in the case was slightly amended and in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner the prayer for release of the vehicle was given up. Instead, a claim was made against the respondent authorities for the entire cost of the vehicle apart from an additional amount, as loss of earning, calculated @ Rs.300/ - per day, for the illegal seizure of the auto -rickshaw and for not releasing it to the petitioner in a highly unreasonable and arbitrary way for a long period till it became quite valueless.

(2.) THE facts of the case are simple, brief and without any controversy. The petitioner applied for a Vehicle Loan to the Bombay Mercantile Bank, Frazer Road Branch. The loan was sanctioned in his favour vide letter, dated 5.2.2003 issued by the Branch Manager (Annexure

(3.) ON 18.8.2003 the Officer Incharge of Chowk P.S. wrote a letter to the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Patna requesting him to inspect the seized vehicle and to send his inspection report to the police station. (A photo copy of the letter is at Annexure 1). After making the request for inspection of the vehicle seized by him the Officer Incharge seems to have put the entire matter out of his mind. He did not report about the seizure of the vehicle to the Magistrate under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under rule 25 of the Police Manual. He took absolutely no action in the matter after writing the letter to the Motor Vehicles Inspector.