Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
RAHUL KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
THE EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3755 of 2021 & CM. APPL. 11317 of 2021
Decided on : 26-07-2021
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Sections 321 and 322 of - 12 goods bundles/ganth - Search and Seizure - Seeking writ of mandamus thereby directing respondent to release vehicle - As per petitioner, petitioner is registered owner of vehicle, which is financed by HDFC Bank and petitioner is still to repay loan amount to bank. Petitioner uses said vehicle for transporting goods on payment basis - Alleged that petitioner approached Officers of respondent for removal of clamp and release of goods. A challan was issued which was paid - No explanation was given as to why the vehicle was clamped but petitioner was advised to visit office of respondent to get his vehicle released.
Finding of the Court:
The heading of a Section also lends, though not normally a part of the statutory provision, assistance in interpreting the statutory intent since the heading always serves as a guide to depict the intention - Admittedly no show cause notice has been given to petitioner requiring him to remove his vehicle from said public land or directing him not to park his vehicle in said land. Petitioner has also not been informed of consequences of alleged illegal parking of the vehicle on public land - No other provision of MCD Act or any Rules framed there under have been relied upon by learned counsel for respondent to justify removal of vehicle of petitioner from place where it was parked i.e. public land in front of Colony - There is no justification of respondent, in seizing vehicle of petitioner, respondent cannot demand any amount towards removal charges or storage charges of the vehicle.
Result: Petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration no. DL-ILAA- 4046 (TATA 407).
2. As per the petitioner, the petitioner is the registered owner of the above referred vehicle, which is financed by HDFC Bank and petitioner is still to repay the loan amount to the bank. Petitioner uses the said vehicle for transporting goods on payment basis.
3. It is contended that on 21.01.2021, said vehicle was parked in front of the house of the petitioner in an open park and some goods were lying; kept beside the vehicle. The officials of the respondent came and put a clamp on the wheel of the said vehicle and seized the goods.
4. It is alleged that petitioner approached the Officers of the respondent for removal of the clamp and release of the goods. A challan of Rs. 11,400/- was issued which was paid on 22.01.2021. No explanation was given as to why the vehicle was clamped but petitioner was advised to visit the office of the respondent to get his vehicle released.
5. It is contended that petitioner along with all the original documents of the said vehicle approached the respondent and requested to remove their clamp enabling him to use his vehicle but the Official of the respondent showed their inability to do the needful stating that there was a strike and the concerned staff was not present in the office and the petitioner had to return empty handed.
6. It is submitted that because of the pandemic, the financial condition of the petitioner was not good and he could not timely service the loan of HDFC bank. Accordingly, on 26.01.2021, the Officers of the Bank visited the petitioner and seized the vehicle of the petitioner and took it away. Thereafter the petitioner made arrangement of funds on interest and got the vehicle released from the bank.
7. Thereafter, once again on 12.02.2021, when the vehicle of the petitioner was parked in front of his house in an open park, the Officers of the Respondent lifted the vehicle and took it away.
8. It is submitted that Petitioner thereafter had approached the respondent for release of the vehicle several times but the Officers of the respondent demanded exorbitant amount for release of the vehicle.
9. It is contended that Petitioner thereafter filed a suit for mandatory injunction before the court of senior civil judge but he has been advised to file the present petition and accordingly he has approached this court.
10. Respondent has filed its counter affidavit contending that a complaint was received from various agencies regarding illegal parking and carrying out of commercial activity in the public land in front of Shamshan Ghat at Geeta Colony, Delhi. It is alleged that Petitioner carries out the commercial activity of loading-unloading of goods in the public place.
11. It is alleged that the Licensing Inspectors of the Respondent conducted a raid on 21.01.2021 and five vehicles were seized with help of clamps and 12 goods bundles/ganth were also seized.
12. It is alleged that Petitioner visited the office of the respondent on 22.01.2021 for release of the 12 goods bundles/ganth. Further, on 23.01.2021 the licensing inspector visited the area again and he noticed that four out of the five seized vehicles had been removed from the spot along with the clamps and only the vehicle of the petitioner was left behind with a broken clamp. A complaint was lodged with the police. However, on 29.01.2021, the licensing inspector found that even the vehicle of the petitioner was also not available at the spot.
13. It is alleged that subsequently on 12.02.2021, vehicle of the petitioner was found parked at the same spot i.e. in the land opposite the Shamshan Ghat at Geeta Colony and with the help of the SHO Police Station, Geeta Colony, the vehicle has been seized.
14. It is alleged that when the petit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
