The High Court of Patna disposed of a writ application seeking quashing of an order requiring deposit for vehicle release. The court noted confiscation proceedings had concluded and advised the petitioner to challenge the confiscation order before the appropriate authority instead. The writ application was disposed of without granting relief.
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.5582 of 2012
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13 Mr. Ravi Kumar, AC to AAG-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER
7 07-12-2016 The writ application has been filed for quashing of the order, contained in Memo No. 3303 dated 12.12.2011, issued by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division, Gaya whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit 15% cash i.e. Rs. 47,420/- and the balance amount of Rs. 2, 68,701/- as Bank Guarantee in the name of Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division, Gaya for release of Tata Magic Vehicle, bearing Registration No. BR02M-8076.
I find that the order, dated 12.12.2011, has been passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division, Gaya in terms of the order, dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.5582 of 2012 (7) dt.07-12-2016
2/2
27.09.2011, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14182 of 2011.
By the said order, this Court directed that the vehicle, in question, may be released in favour of the petitioner, if he deposits 15% of the value of the vehicle in cash and the rest by way of Bank Guarantee. As the petitioner did not deposit the aforesaid amount, the said vehicle was not released. By now much water has flown and confiscation proceeding also stands concluded.
The petitioner, if so, advised may challenge the order passed in confiscation proceeding before the appropriate authority.
Accordingly, writ application is disposed of.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)
ajaypd./-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ application for quashing the order directing deposit to release an impounded vehicle should be disposed of given the conclusion of the confiscation proceedings.
Pinki Devi
The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Environment And Forest
The Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division
Samarendra Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
