Allahabad High Court
Ram Narayan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 April, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Manjive Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6447 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ram Narayan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the entire proceeding under section 86 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 initiated against the vehicle of the petitioner bearing vehicle no. UP64AT3826. With a further prayer commanding the second respondent to permit the petitioner to deposit compounding fee of Rs. 5000/- towards vehicle permit No. UP/63/NP/MAG/2018/932 valid till 12.04.2023 and to forthwith reinstate the vehicle permit certificate to the petitioner within stipulated period.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in Rajan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others (Writ-A No. 18236 of 2021, dt. 23.5.2022) and as such it is sought to be contended that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioner. For ready reference, the order dated 23.5.2022 is reproduced herein below.
"Sri Krishna Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Contention of the petitioner is that his vehicle was challaned on account of overloading and the driver having no driving license. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have passed an order dated 16.03.2020 whereby the vehicle has also been blacklisted, however, this fact is denied by the counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to deposit the compounding charges i.e. Rs. 5000/-.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case petitioner deposits the compounding charges, the offence would be compounded.
Without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5000/- as compounding charges within two weeks.
In the event petitioner deposits Rs. 5000/- as compounding charges, the respondents shall proceed further and pass appropriate order in accordance with law ignoring the point of delay in depositing the amount. "
The above said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not being disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of Rajan Yadav (supra). In the event petitioner deposits Rs. 5000/- as compounding charges, the respondents shall proceed further and pass appropriate order in accordance with law ignoring the point of delay in depositing the amount.
Order Date :- 13.4.2023
A.K.Srivastava
