Partly allowed

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 May 2022A482/10533/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified an impugned order quashing the earlier decision under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 requiring the applicant to pay Rs. 2,25,000 for a seized vehicle, instead ordering payment of Rs. 2,00,000 subject to ownership proof.

What did the court decide?

The order fixing payment at Rs. 2,25,000 was modified to require payment of Rs. 2,00,000 and the applicant was directed to file an ownership application within three weeks.

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10533 of 2021 Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.10.2020 in Case No. 1056 of 2020 (State VS. Neeraj Kumar), under section 72 of U.. Excise Act, 1910 passed by District Magistrate. Bulandshahr wherein it has been observed that the vehicle is seized in favour of the State and in case the owner of the vehicle wants to purchase the vehicle shall pay the market rate of Rs. 2,25,000/-

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the vehicle bearing registration No. UP13BF6515 belongs to the applicant and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the vehicle at police station which would result in the vehicle becoming junk. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat 2003 (46) A.C.C. 223 in support of his contention, in which it has been held that it is not desirable in the matter of motor vehicle, the vehicle be kept at the police station for a long time which result in the vehicle becoming junk, therefore, the vehicle-in-question should be released in favour of the registered owner on such terms and conditions as the court below may deem fit and proper. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court reported in 2012 (77) ACC 381 Shyam Singh Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. and another in support of his contention. Learned has next submits that the applicants are ready to comply with all the conditions, which the court below will impose while releasing the vehicle. Undisputedly, applicants are the rightful owner of the vehicle, therefore, the vehicle be released in his favour and the impugned order be quashed.

¶6

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A., and after perusing the order impugned as well as averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion, that the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the applicant has substance.

¶7

Accordingly, the order dated 23.10.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr is modified to the extent that applicant shall pay Rs. 2,00,000/- in place of 2,25,000/- and file an appropriate application alongwith all relevant documents showing the ownership of the vehicle, before the concerned Court below and if such an application is filed within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one month, thereafter.

¶8

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.

¶9

Order Date :- 5.5.2022/RPD

¶10

Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.05.06 15:15:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Badera Alias Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Taukeer Alias Kallu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Onkar Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vikas and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shabir Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others