Dismissed

Banarsi Dass v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2012CWP/10636/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner approached this Court via CWP under Articles 226/227 seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents for illegally challaning his vehicle due to alleged commercial use and lack of fitness. The petition was dismissed as the respondents explained the challan was lawful based on driver's admission, and the fines were subsequently compounded with fee deposit.

What did the court decide?

None granted; CWP dismissed.

Banarsi Dass Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

::1::

¶2

CWP No.10636 of 2010 (O & M)

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.10636 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: February 08, 2012.

Banarsi Dass

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: Mr.Sandeep Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶15

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to take action against respondent No.3 on the ground that he has illegally and arbitrary challaned the vehicle of the petitioner.

¶16

The petitioner claims to be the owner of one Jeep bearing Registration No.PB-24-2807, which was orginally owned by Naresh Pal Singh son of Shri Shankar Singh and the registration number of the said vehicle was issued in his name on 22.05.1995 by the Registring Authority Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. The said vehicle was purchased by the petitioner from Naresh Pal Singh on 01.05.2006. It is further averred that a lump sum amount of Road Tax amounting to Rs.2400/- was also paid by the original owner of

¶17

::2::

¶18

CWP No.10636 of 2010 (O & M)

¶19

the vehicle on 11.05.1995. A further averment is that on 10.03.2010, when the petitioner was travelling along with his family members from Phagwara to Baba Kasani religious place of worship at Village Mehdood for offering prayer, then, respondent No.3 had stopped the vehicle of the petitioner near Dana Mandi, Banga at 9.30 a.m. and he had illegally and arbitrarily challaned the said vehicle.

¶20

Upon notice having been issued to the respondents, learned State counsel has filed reply on their behalf, wherein as per the averments made in Para 5 of the written statement, it has been stated therein that the driver of the vehicle had admitted that the things which were being carried in the said vehicle were for sale and also the driver of the vehicle was unable to produce any document with regard to registration of the vehicle. Para 5 of the reply reads as

¶21

under :

¶22

"That Para No.5 of the writ petition is totally wrong, hence denied. The vehicle under reference was stopped and checked by the answering respondent on 10.03.2010, but as the driver of the vehicle was not in possession of any document of the vehicle it was thoroughly checked and it was found that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose as the said vehicle was loaded with sweets and many cans of milk which was told by the driver that it was for sale. So, the passenger vehicle was used as goods carriage as transport vehicle. It is pertinent to mention here that the commercial vehicle is to be got passed every year and M.V.T. Is to be paid every year regularly. Thus, vehicle was challaned as explained by the driver of the vehicle that the vehicle 15 years old, not passed/neither renewed fitness certificate,

¶23

CWP No.10636 of 2010 (O & M)

¶24

::3::

¶25

without any document and Motor Vehicle Tax not paid for commercial use, so the vehicle was challaned under the offences committed with relevant provision of law and the vehicle was impounded Under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Under Section 14 B of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924. The petitioner agreed to compound the offences and deposited the compounding fee according to law for the charges levelled as committed offences and the vehicle was immediately released. Thus, the challan was made according to law and disposed off at the same time, when the petitioner deposited the compounding fee."

¶26

A perusal of the reply shows that the same was filed on 10.09.2011 and no replication has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner to controvert the averments made in Para 5 thereof.

¶27

In view of the above, it cannot be said that respondent No.3 had any malice and the vehicle was challaned for the offences committed under the relevant provisions of law. Even the driver of the said vehicle was unable to produce any document at the time of checking by respondent No.3. Further, the petitioner had agreed to compound the offences and had deposited the compounding fee according to law for the charges levelled against him and the vehicle was immediately released.

¶28

Accordingly, no ground for intereference is made out and the present petition is dismissed.

¶29

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶30

February 08, 2012 sukhpreet

¶31

CWP No.10636 of 2010 (O & M) ::4::

Banarsi Dass v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banarsi Dass v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukand Lal Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Hardeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Arun Kumar Seemar Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Bimal Kishore Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Monika and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bir Parkash Malhotra and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.