Single-judge High Court directed the CJM and RTO Auraiya to resolve a vehicle detention dispute or submit a challani report within one month, relying on principles that vehicles cannot be detained indefinitely.
Directed RTO Auraiya to submit report or resolve matter within one month; CJM to look into the matter.
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. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40394 of 2022 Applicant :- Karunesh Kumar Katiyar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Krishan Mohan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The applicant has prayed to direct the CJM, Auraiya to pass an order for release of truck bearing Registration No.UP75 AT 3835 in favour of the applicant during the pendency of the present application.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that he moved an application before the CJM, Auraiya on 07.06.2022 to summon the challani report from RTO, Auraiya. He is ready to pay the compounding fee and road tax due against the vehicle and an order has been passed by the CJM. He further contends that till now in spite of lapse of six months' time ARTO, Auraiya has not submitted the challan. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment in Application U/S 482/378/407 No.6507 of 2013 (Ameer Ahmad Vs. State of UP and another) in which on 19.12.2013 a coordinate Bench of this Court directed Transport Commissioner to ensure that all the vehicles detained under Section 207 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short 'the MV Act') be released within a week and challani report will be submitted before the concerned court within seven days.
The act of RTO is quasi judicial . When he acts under the MV Act and if the impugned vehicle was challaned under the MV Act, it is
duty of the RTO concerned either to dispose of the the matter/dispute at his own end or to submit the challan or charge sheet to the concerned court. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 , it has been held that the vehicle should not be detained in police or any custody for an indefinite period otherwise the value of the commodities and vehicle etc. are lost and they are converted into garbage.
Certainly if any action had been taken under the MV Act, the RTO, Auraiya was duty bound either to decide the dispute at his own end or to submit the challani report/report/charge sheet in the court of concerned Magistrate but he cannot sit upon for an indefinite period. When a registered and ensured vehicle has been challened in violation of any provision of the MV Act, the remedy is already provided under the MV Act for disposal and when the applicant is ready to deposit the due and compounding fee, why the application of the applicant is not disposed of is a matter of concern to this Court.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the RTO, Auraiya and CJM, Auraiya are directed to look into the matter. The RTO, Auraiya is directed to submit report in compliance of the order dated 07.06.2022 passed by CJM, Auraiya. If the matter is liable to be resolved in the court, the challani report would be submitted by RTO, Auraiya and if there is no need to send the challani report in the court and applicant is ready to deposit the compounding fee and road tax etc. due against the vehicle, the matter would be resolved at the end of RTO, Auraiya within a period of one month.
With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.2.2023/Shahroz
Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the vehicle detained under the Motor Vehicles Act should be released to the applicant upon compliance of fees and submission of the challani report within a reasonable time.
Whether the Regional Transport Office (RTO) and CJM were duty-bound to resolve the matter or submit reports within a specified period to prevent indefinite detention of the vehicle.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ameer Ahmad Vs. State of UP and anotherRelied on¶6
Application U/S 482/378/407 No.6507 of 2013 (Ameer Ahmad Vs. State of UP and another)
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of GujaratRelied on¶8
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Karunesh Kumar Katiyar
State of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
