- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Ray, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS writ petition is filed on behalf of Radhey Shyam Yadav with a prayer that respondents be directed to release the Vehicle No. U. P. 60-A 0919 (Jeep) in favour of the petitioner. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner is the owner of a commander Jeep No. U. P. 60-A 0919 and he has paid one time road tax on 13-10-1996. It is registered as a private vehicle. The aforesaid vehicle has been intercepted by the Assistant Regional 'transport Officer, Ballia, respondent No. 2 on 24-7-2003 and the same was kept at the Police Station Phephna district Ballia. The petitioner has produced the registration certificate but the same has not been released by respondents 2 and 3. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia with a prayer to release the vehicle in his favour but respondent No. 2 submitted a challan report in respect of the vehicle concerned on 26-2-2004 and respondent No. 2 submitted a report dated 15-3-2004 mentioning therein that the petitioner had moved an application to convert the registration of the vehicle concerned from private vehicle to public vehicle, its reply was given by the petitioner on 17-3-2004. The order dated 23-3-2004 was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a criminal revision No. 139 of 2004 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ballia but the same was dismissed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia on 29-5-2004. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is an admitted fact that the vehicle concerned is registered vehicle in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner has applied for converting the same as a public vehicle but the same has not been converted and respondent No. 2 has illegally intercepted the vehicle of the petitioner and demanded tax and additional tax which is not leviable on the petitioner's vehicle.
(3.) IT is further contended that the vehicle in question was never used as a public vehicle. IT is used as a private vehicle and respondent No. 2 has submitted challan report after six months of the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle, which is a concocted document and the conduct of respondent No. 2 was fully malafide. In case there was any violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner was liable for fine only. It is further contended that there is a prescribed procedure for converting a private vehicle into a public vehicle, but till now no procedure has been followed and without following any procedure the vehicle concerned has been converted into a maxi cab, which is illegal and it is manipulation in the record of the vehicle concerned kept in the office of the A. R. T. O. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on any report of such conversion.;