Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2020WRIC/9841/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the confiscation of a tractor, the court directed the respondent authority to revisit the case after an RTI reply certified the relevant transit pass as genuine, ordering a fresh decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to revisit the matter within two months considering the RTI reply certifying the transit pass as genuine.

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9841 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R P Rajan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Following orders were passed in the matter on 19.6.2020:-

¶6

"Petitioner's tractor has been confiscated by the competent authority exercising his powers under Section 52(a) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioner's defence that he is a trader and had valid authority to carry sand and there also existed a valid transit pass issued by the Forest Officer has been disbelieved primarily on the ground that there is a overwriting in the tractor number. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court an R.T.I reply received from the D.F.O. Office, dated 13th May, 2020, in which the tractor number is clearly mentioned as 'UP 67 N 3212'. Submission is that the finding contained in the order that the papers have been manipulated/forged is contrary to the admitted records of the respondents themselves.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel may obtain specific instructions in that regard by the next date fixed.

¶8

Post this matter as fresh, once again, on 9.7.2020."

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel states that due to inadvertence proper communication has not been sent.

¶10

Be that as it may, considering the nature of order proposed to be passed, no further time is liable to be granted to the respondents to take instructions in the matter. The only ground on which petitioner's defence against confiscation of his vehicle got rejected was that transit pass relied upon by the petitioner contains interpolation and was not genuine.

¶11

The petitioner has moved an application under the RTI Act and the concerned Office of D.F.O. has certified the transit pass to be a genuine document.

¶12

In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the second respondent to revisit the matter keeping in view the R.T.I. reply given by the department on 13th May, 2020. It would be open for the officer concerned to verify original records also in light of the reply given under the RTI Act. A fresh order would be passed in the matter within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The orders impugned in the writ petition shall remain subject to the fresh order to be passed by the second respondent.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.7.2020/Ranjeet Sahu

Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Sadhu Ram and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Narain Tiwari Vs State Bank of India and Another

Vinod Singh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Ashutosh Vs Central Board of Secondary Education and 4 Others

Gunjan Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others