Virendra Singh, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direction in Respondent No. 2 (A.R.T.O., Saharanpur) to decide the release application dated 27.2.2010 filed by the petitioner expeditiously as soon as possible. Heard Smt. Archana Tyagi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner's Vehicle No. UP -12 T -1526 was seized by the A.R.T.O., Saharanpur on 30.1.2010. The release application was filed by the petitioner on 27.2.2010 which is said to be still pending disposal before the A.R.T.O., Saharanpur. It is submitted that the petitioner's vehicle has been detained as per provisions under section of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and U.P. Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1987 by the Transport Authority. The petitioner is ready to furnish security before the A.R.T.O., Saharanpur, but even then, the A.R.T.O., Saharanpur has not released the vehicle of the petitioner. An application for release of the vehicle was also filed by the petitioner before the A.C.J.M., Saharanpur. The learned A.C.J.M., Saharanpur had called for the report from the authority concerned and found that no criminal case is filed in the aforesaid matter and therefore, he did not pass any order on the release application for the vehicle. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the vehicle is detained due to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and unless the petitioner appears before the Transport Authority to deposit the compound fees as well as the additional tax imposed as per report dated 23.2.2010 by the A.R.T.O., Saharanpur, the authority concerned is not under obligation to release the vehicle.
(3.) THE Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jugal Kishore v. State of U.P. and another, 1994 AWC 1754, has laid down the law in this regard as follows: The clear cut and unambiguous position under the law that emerges and admits of no contradiction is that on a vehicle being seized and detained by a police officer or other person authorized in this behalf by the State Government on his having reason to believe that one or other of the offences specified punishable under section of the Act has been or is being committed, he has to consider first for temporary release of vehicle subject to owners furnishing security to his satisfaction within reasonable period of time. If the vehicle is not released temporarily the police officer or person authorized has to decide the question as to whether the owner has committed any offence is to be compounded. This exercise has also to be completed within reasonable period of time. When the police officer or authorized person does not release the vehicle so seized on being satisfied that an offence has been committed or refuses to compound the offence, he is duty bound to complete the investigation/inquiry within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time in a given case would depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and to file a complaint before the Magistrate competent to try the case and the Magistrate on the complaint being so laid before him would have the jurisdiction to release the vehicle pending trial as provided under section , Cr.P.C. and later on to pass an order as to the final disposal of the vehicle as provided under section , Cr.P.C. at the conclusion of the trial. If the complaint is not laid before the Magistrate within a reasonable time, it is always open to the owner of the vehicle to approach the Court under Article of the Constitution. The petitioners in all the writ petitions can have their remedy under the law in the light of our aforegoing observations. In the end, we direct the respondents to act in accordance with the observations made in this judgment.;