Allahabad High Court
ASHIQUE KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the seizure was a factual matter not amenable to writ jurisdiction and therefore disposed of the petitions.
Summary
Petitioners alleged that their vehicles were wrongfully seized by the police and a transport company without proper challans being issued. The respondents contended that the seizure was justified because the vehicles were overloaded by 23 tonnes, had an expired permit, and unpaid road tax, and they attached photocopies of the challans. Petitioners denied these factual allegations, asserting that no spot weighment slip under Section 114 of the Motor Vehicles Act was produced. The Court held that the dispute was purely factual, not a matter for writ jurisdiction, and directed the petitioners to seek relief through the appropriate statutory remedy without concern for delay. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure of the vehicles without a duly issued challan can be challenged by a writ petition.
- Whether the factual allegations of excess load, expired permit, and unpaid road tax justify the seizure under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether the petitioners' delay in approaching the statutory remedy bars their claim.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act — s. 114
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- writ petition
- Motor Vehicles Act
- excess load
- expired permit
- road tax
- factual dispute
- statutory remedy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 9308 of 2026
Ashique Khan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others
.....Respondent(s)
Along with :
1. Writ - A No. 13486 of 2026:
Arvaj
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others
2. Writ - A No. 13485 of 2026:
Raghvendra Singh
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others
3. Writ - A No. 13488 of 2026:
Pawan Kumar
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devendra Kumar Singh, Dharmendra
Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. The writ petition is leading case among four writ petitions listed at
item nos. 71 to 71.3. Facts are similar, inasmuch as, petitioners
complain, the vehicles were wrongly seized. On moving of the
petitions Mr. Alok Kumar Dwivedi, learned advocate appearing for
petitioners had submitted that challans were also not issued. There
was direction for filing counter. Pleadings are complete. Respondent
no. 2 (the transport company) and respondent no. 3 (police) both
have filed separate counters.
2. Paragraph-14 of the counter filed by respondent no. 2 (the
transport company) is reproduced below.
"14. That the contents of Paras 2 & 3 of the writ petition are not
admitted as stated, hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted
WRIA No. 9308 of 2026
2
that during the course of checking the concerned driver well
knowingly the shortcoming of the vehicle documents and
weighment of the vehicle left the vehicle insecurely on the road to
avoid any kind of seizure proceeding. Later on, the task team
reveal that there are various shortcoming because the said vehicle
was carrying 23 tones excess Maurang of prescribed limit for the
vehicle and the permit was also expired and the road tax was only
paid upto 31.03.2026, therefore, the concerned team rightly seized
the vehicle in accordance with the law. True copy of the
challan/seizure of the vehicle is being annexed herewith and
marked as annexure-C.A.-2 to this affidavit."
The disclosure are photocopies of the challans. Petitioners in
paragraph-16 of the rejoinder has dealt with said paragraph-14.
Paragraph-16 from the rejoinder is reproduced below.
"16. The contents of Paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit are
false, wrong and vague specifically denied. In reply thereto, the
deponent specifically reaffirms the pleadings made in Paragraph 3,
4, 11, 22 and 34 of the writ petition and submits it is specifically
denied that the vehicle was carrying 23 tonnes of excess Maurang
or that the driver left the vehicle insecurely to avoid seizure. The
claim of 23 tonnes excess cargo is completely unsubstantiated as
no spot weighment slip from an authorized weighbridge was ever
drawn up under section 114 of the MV Act or provided to the
petitioner."
3. It is clear from analysis of the pleadings that issuance of the
challans have not been disputed. The dispute is regarding contents of
them. It is a dispute on facts. We will not interfere. Petitioner is to find
his remedy. For the purpose, in event petitioner expeditiously
approaches for statutory remedy, there should not be question raised
on delay.
4. Mr. Dwivedi submits, in respect of one of the challans (subject
matter of Writ-A no. 13488 of 2026) entire deposit has been made but
the vehicle not released. The submission stands recorded. Petitioner
may rely on certified copy of this order along with payment receipt
corresponding to the challans and approach for release of the
vehicle(s).
5. The writ petitions are disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
September 16, 2026
Shiraz
Digitally signed by :-
SHIRAZ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…