- (1.) T. P. Garg, J. Heard the learned coun sel for the petitioner/revisionist and the learned A. G. A. for the State. Both have agreed that this revision/petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18-3-1997, passed by respon dent No. 4, rejecting the application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle No. MP-19/7369 on the ground that no charge- sheet has so far been filed and hence he has no jurisdiction to pass any order on the ap plication of the petitioner. It appears from the averments made in the petition that the aforesaid vehicle was seized by respondent No. 2 on 15-3-197 under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') on various grounds allegedly in violation of the provisions of the Act, as detailed in the seizure memo (Annexure '2' to the peti tion ). It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle has not so far been released and is lying in the custody of the police without any cogent reason, on account of which the petitioner is suffering irreparable loss. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is hereby directed that respon dents Nos. 2 and 3, i. e. A. R. T. O. (E), Jaunpur, and Station Officer, P. S. Machhali Shahr, Jaunpur, shall forward the relevant papers to the authority/court concerned within a reasonable time and not more than four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and thereafter, the court/authority concerned will consider the application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(3.) WITH the aforesaid direction, this revision/petition is disposed of finally. A certified copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the par ties, on payment of usual charges, within 24 hours. Petition disposed of. .;