Back
2017 Supreme(J&K) 187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
ALOK ARADHE, SANJEEV KUMAR, JJ.
Dr. Davinder Singh Jasrotia - Appellant
Vs.
State of J&K And Ors. - Respondents
Mp No. 49 Of 2017 In Wppil No. 25 Of 2011
Decided On : 21-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicants :Mr. Sudershan Kumar, Advocate
Compliance with court orders and legal provisions regarding the release of seized vehicles.
Headnote:
Seizure - Tinted Glass - Release of Vehicle
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought the release of a vehicle seized by the Traffic Police for using tinted glass.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the release of the vehicle in accordance with previous court orders, with the modification that the concerned police agency/traffic authority would release the vehicle after taking the undertakings.
Issues: Seizure of vehicle for using tinted glass, compliance with previous court orders, remittance for release of vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the previous court orders regarding the release of seized vehicles and the non-compliance with the Supreme Court's orders for removal of tinted glass.
Final Decision: The vehicle was ordered to be released on remittance of Rs.1000/- towards the Advocates’ Welfare Fund, subject to the conditions mentioned.
1. This application is filed by the applicant seeking a direction for release of vehicle (Beat LT TCDI) bearing Registration No.JKo2BD-1120, seized on 19.07.2017, by the Traffic Police, Jammu under Section 206 (II) M.V Act for using tinted glass.
2. The instant application is disposed of in terms of the direction issued on 17.10.2012 which reads as under:-
“By the medium of these CMAs, applicants are seeking a direction from this Court for release of their vehicles, which have been seized by the police agency/traffic authorities in terms of the directions passed by this Court on the grounds taken in these CMAs.
It is also prayed that instead of DIG, Traffic, Jammu Range, the concerned police agency/traffic authorities, who have seized the respective vehicles of the applicants/registered owners, be directed to release their vehicles on their furnishing the undertakings as directed by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2012.
For the reasons detailed in the CMAs, the prayer made is granted. Let the vehicles be released in favour of the applicants/authorized owners in terms of order dated 25.09.2012 passed in WPPIL No. 25/2011, with a modification that instead of DIGs, the concerned police agency/traffic authority would release the vehicle after taking the undertakings. In terms of order dated 25.09.2012, applicants/authorized owners are directed to explain their position and shall furnish their response on or before the next date of hearing.”
It is made clear that if the vehicle is seized for not removing the tinted glasses, then the said order will govern.
3. The Supreme Court had passed orders for removal of tinted glass in the year 2011 itself. In spite of the passage of about six years since the said order, the petitioner has used the tinted glass in his vehicle which has resulted in the seizure of said vehicle.
4. However, the vehicle is ordered to be released on remittance of Rs.1000/- towards the Advocates’ Welfare Fund and only after production of the receipt in that behalf, the vehicle shall be released subject to the conditions mentioned above.
MP, accordingly, disposed of.
