SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Guj) 105

S.K.KESHOTE
P. P. DAVE – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: H.H.PATEL, NILDHARA I.DESAI

S. K. KESHOTE, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are the registered owner of the seized Omni Buses, details of which are given in the list at Annexure - A to this petition. Three out of nine, vehicles were seized by the Transport Officer on 1st August, 1999, 3rd November, 1999 and 6th November respectively. The checking memos were given in which, it is alleged that the offence of misuse of the permit that is a contract carriage permit used as a Stage Carriage permit is committed. The Transport Officer recovered Rs. 1000. 00 for each case from the owners and Rs. 1000. 00 for each case from the drivers as composition fees. It is stated that recovery of composition fees is against wish and will of the driver with a threat to seize the vehicles if the same is not paid. In the petition, the petitioners pray for writ in the nature of prohibition or any other direction or order not to seize the vehicles of the petitioners under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner raised manifold contentions in the matter but I do not consider it necessary to go on each and every contention and record the findings thereon.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the responde







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top