P. S. MISHRA, C. J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. The only judgmerit delivered by the learned single Judge reads as follows:"singe there is no provision in the Act authorising any authority to release the vehicle which has been detained for infraction of Prohibition Law, the writ petition is maintainable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that there is no justification for the detention of the vehicle, pending enquiry. The respondent is, therefore, directed to release the vehicle bearing no. MP. G. 14 0484, on furnishing bank guarantee for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty Five Thousand only) and also on giving an undertaking that it will be produced before the authorities for any purpose relating to the enquiry. "

( 2 ) THE above obviously is not a judicial order. There is absolutely no consideration why the Court is staisf ied that the vehicle which is allegedly used in crime is ordered to be released. It has become almost free for all that the moment there is a seizure, this Court s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India is invoked and on such ex parte statements which p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document