This Article 227 petition challenged an order seizing a motorcycle for transporting illegal liquor. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove illegality or perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition, affirming the seizure.
Petition dismissed; no order directing release of the seized motorcycle.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1581 of 2021
Petitioner :- Subhash Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel through video conferencing.
Petitioner, by means of instant petition, seeks the following reliefs:
"i) Set aside the impugned order dated 11.11.2020 passed by District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in case no. D-202012610000496 State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Mobit Kumar Mishra and others and order and the impugned judgment dated 04.01.2021 passed by Learned Additional District and Session Judge-III, Shahjahanpur in Civil Appeal no 23/2020 (Subhash Vs State of Uttar Pradesh)
ii) issue a order or direction of release the HH Deluxe no. Motor cycle no. UP27 AP/0636."
The facts, giving rise to the instant petition, briefly stated, is that a first information report came to be lodged on 22.03.2020 being Case Crime No. 132 of 2020, under Sections 60(2), 72 U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1910") and Section 272/34 I.P.C., Police Station Khutar, District Shahjahanpur. The vehicle (Motorcycle No. U.P. 27 AP/0636) was recovered on the spot carrying illegal 50 ltr. countrymade liquor in a tube and 20 ltr in a container. Vehicle was seized in the proceedings initiated in terms of the provisions of Act, 1910. The Collector vide order dated 11.11.2020 affirmed the notice and the vehicle used for the purpose of carrying illegal liquor, was directed to be seized and auctioned. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2020 (Subhash Vs. State of U.P.). The appellate court dismissed the appeal affirming the order passed by Collector.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made two fold submissions that the vehicle seized has been implanted; and the applicant is having no criminal history.
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that vehicle seized is owned by the petitioner. The registration record of the vehicle showing the ownership of the vehicle has been placed on record (Annexure-7). As per the F.I.R. version, six persons came to be arrested while preparing illegal liquor, the vehicle was sized from the spot on which illegal liquor, noted in the impugned order, was being carried.
Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality, infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to warrant interference.
The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.
It is clarified that no other point has been pressed.
Order Date :- 7.7.2021 P. Sri.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of seizure and auction of seized vehicle under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 warrants interference in writ proceedings.
Whether the alleged implantation of the seized vehicle entitles the petitioner to release of the vehicle under Article 227.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Subhash
State Of U P
Suneet Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
