Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sarwajeet Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 2188 Patna

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2188 Patna
Judgement Date : 8 May, 2023

Patna High Court
Sarwajeet Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 8 May, 2023
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14807 of 2021
     ======================================================

Sarwajeet Kumar, S/o Shivjee Singh at present residing at Village- Suara, P.O.- Pahleza, P.S.- Dehri, Distt- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary of Bihar Govt. Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Nawada, Bihar.

3. The Superintendent of Traffic of Police, Nawada Bihar.

4. The M.V.I. Officer, Nawada.

5. The S.H.O., P.S.- Mophfasil, Nawada.

6. The General Manager at Shree Cement Limited New Bihar Cement Plant at present residing at Warsaliganj, Main Road Near Petrol Pump, Aurangabad, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dr. Ajay Shankar Rajoo, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ajay Kr. Rastogi (AAG-10) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 08-05-2023

The above writ petition is filed for recovery of an amount

of Rs. 75,500/- (Seventy Five thousand five hundred) from the

respondent authorities. The petitioner also seeks for quashing the

order dated 19.02.2021 issued by the 4th respondent who issued the

aforesaid Challan. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the aforesaid amounts were deposited on coercion,

especially since the goods detained were perishable and the petitioner

required the release of the goods expeditiously. It is argued that the

fine imposed was not permissible and is illegal. A counter affidavit Patna High Court CWJC No.14807 of 2021 dt.08-05-2023

has been filed by the appropriate authority which discloses that on

19.02.2021 the M.V.I, Nawada impounded the truck bearing no.

UP65R9812 at 6:30 A.M. on carrying out a weighment at the nearby

weighbridge. The truck was found to be carrying a load of 39,170

Kgs., which was an overload of 14 tons. The truck was brought to the

Muffasil Police Station and seized on allegation of such overload and

there was absolutely no papers produced by the driver upon which

there was a compounding effected under Section 200 of the Motor

Vehicles Tax Act, 1988.

The petitioner had voluntarily deposited the amount in

lieu of prosecution under the various provisions on which the

allegations were raised which is very evident from the challan

produced by the petitioner himself at Annexure-1. The compounding

fee imposed under the various provisions are also detailed in the

counter affidavit. It is after this the petitioner raised a complaint

against the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Nawada alleging that there was

demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 50,000/- from the driver of the

vehicle. The District Collector had sought for an explanation, reply to

which was given by Annexure-B. It was asserted that the petitioner's

vehicle was having an overload and that the requisite papers relating

to insurance, pollution and fitness as on the date of seizure was not

produced by the driver. The District Collector also found the

allegations raised to be prima facie baseless and hence there were no

further proceedings taken.

Patna High Court CWJC No.14807 of 2021 dt.08-05-2023

We find that the vehicle itself was carrying cement, not

a perishable item. The petitioner definitely could have challenged the

proceedings initiated, which he did not do. The petitioner also did not

stake a claim for release of the goods before the detaining authority.

The petitioner voluntarily paid the amounts determined as

compounding fee under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988

and then turned around to challenge the determination of fine.

We are not convinced that such a challenge can be

maintained especially after voluntary payment of compounding fees,

as provided under Section 200.

We dismiss the writ petition.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

( Rajiv Roy, J) Anushka/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          12.05.2023
Transmission Date
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter