Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Gautam vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 April, 2011
Bench: R.K. Agrawal, Bharati Sapru
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 570 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mahendra Gautam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- V.K. Maheshwari
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Enforcement Officer, Transport Department, seizing the petitioner's vehicle popularly known as Jugad on the ground that the vehicle was not registered, it did not had any permit nor it had paid taxes as also the driver of the vehicle did not possess the driving license and on other grounds.
We have heard Sri V.K. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned standing counsel representing the respondents and have perused the averments made in the writ petition as also the documents filed along with it.
Sri Maheshwari, learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to the interim order passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court on 09.12.2005 in Writ Petition No. 6611 (M/B) of 2005 - Avnish Kumar Versus State of U.P. and others, wherein a direction was issued to the transport authorities as well as the police authorities to seize and destroy Jugad vehicles as the same are causing loss to the State Exchequer and endangering the life of the travelling public. He submitted that in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. NIL of 2006 (CC 616/2006), the Apex Court vide order dated 17.01.2006 had stayed the operation of the order dated 09.12.2005. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court had disposed of the petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) NO. 2524 of 2006 vide order dated24.11.2006 by directing the High Court to dispose of the Writ Petition No. 6611 (M/B) of 2005 pending before the Lucknow Bench of this Court with utmost expedition and till such time the writ petition is disposed of, the interim order dated 27.06.2006 was continued.
Sri Maheshwari relied upon the interim order passed by this Court on 04.04.2011 in Writ Petition (Tax) No. 365 of 2011 - Vansraj Yadav Versus State of U.P. and others, wherein this Court had directed for the release of the petitioner's vehicle Jugad forthwith on the ground that the Supreme Court had already stayed the operation of the order till the decision of the writ petition by the Lucknow Bench.
Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned standing counsel produced before us a copy of the order dated 23.02.2011 passed by the Lucknow Bench wherein the Writ Petition No. 6611 (M/B) of 2005 had been disposed of with the following directions:
"We, therefore, dispose of the aforesaid writ petitions with the direction that the respondents shall strictly follow theRules and the provisions of the Act and shall ensure that the illegal plying of vehicles be not permitted or undertaken by any operator. The respondents are supposed to chalk out a specific plan and depute the officer concerned to check the illegal plying of vehicles who can control the same by taking effective measures in this regard, as may be provided under the Rules."
It appears that the judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 passed by the Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. 6611 (M/B) of 2005 was not brought to the notice of this Court when it passed the order on 04.04.2011. The said writ petition having been disposed of by the Lucknow Bench on 23.02.2011, the interim protection granted by the Apex Court cease to have any effect thereafter.
Sri Maheshwari then submitted that the Jugad vehicles are not covered under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, therefore, the question of taking registration, permit, paying taxes, etc. does not arise. The submission is wholly misconceived.
Under sub-section 28 of section 2 of the Act, which defines the motor vehicle or the vehicle, the vehicle Jugad is squarely covered in it as it is mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads. The provisions of section 39 of the Act and all provisions contained therein are fully applicable to Jugad vehicles also.
That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that as the petitioner's vehicle has not complied all the provisions of the Act, the seizure effected by the authority can not be interfered with.
However, it will be open for the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and if the same is complied with, the authority will take appropriate action in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.4.2011
AM/-
