In a writ petition regarding truck confiscation, the Patna High Court dismissed the application, holding that no interference with the Collector's and Additional Sessions Judge's orders was warranted despite the petitioner's submission that the driver was solely liable.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2151 of 2015
=========================================================== Baleshwar Roy Son of Late Kusheshwar Roy, Resident of Village - Dohatbari, P.S - Udakishunganj, District - Madhepura.
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Madhepura. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Madhepura. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. SC5- SATYA DEO KUMAR
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 28-07-2015
The order of the Collector has also been affirmed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge 1st , Madhepura, in Confiscation Appeal No. 7 of 2014. By virtue of this order the truck possessed by the owner stands confiscated. The detail and circumstance under which such confiscation came to be made is well dealt with, not only in the order of the Collector but also in the order of the Additional Sessions Judge 1st , Madhepura.
The Court is not impressed by the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that owner of the truck had no business or knowledge as to what transpired. The liability should be fastened upon the driver.
Driver is not the owner. Driver is only an agent of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2151 of 2015 dt.28-07-2015
2 / 2
principal who happens to be the owner of the truck. Therefore, he has to answer for any kind of deviant conduct in which his truck was involved.
The Court is not impressed by the submission so made. Writ application does not merit consideration because no interference is warranted with the two impugned orders.
Writ application is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)
R.K.Pathak/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether interference is warranted with the impugned orders of confiscation.
Baleshwar Roy
State of Bihar
Collector, Madhepura
Sub Divisional Officer, Madhepura
Ajay Kumar Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
