By the Court.—Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. Grievance of petitioner is that respondent-3 intercepted petitioner’s vehicle, i.e., Truck No. RG-01 GB-5544 carrying certain goods at National Highway-24 and asked petitioner-2 to hand over all documents relating to goods. The documents available with petitioner-2 were handed over to which respondent-3 alleged that there are certain discrepancies and therefore seized the goods alongwith vehicle on 3.10.2014 despite request of Driver to unload the goods and release vehicle. However, without any power or authority of seizure of vehicle and without seizing the vehicle with due process of law, respondent-3 illegally detained vehicle for more than 25 days and thereafter lodged report bearing Case Crime No. 1755 dated 31.10.2014 under Sections 420, 120B, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 472 I.P.C. at Police Indirapuram but vehicle in question was not handed over to Police but remained under custody of respondent-3. It is only when all these facts were brought to the notice of this Court and this Court passed following order on 22.1.2015, vehicle in question was released:

“Sri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Special Counsel for the State has received instructions indicating that the vehicle has been detained on the instructions of the Investigating Officer pursuant to the lodging of an FIR and on that ground, the vehicle has not been released in favour of the petitioner.

The learned Special Counsel further submitted that appropriate orders may be passed by the Court for release of the vehicle forthwith. The learned Special Counsel further stated that a short time may be given to file a counter-affidavit to bring all these facts on record.

The law is settled, namely, that the commercial tax authorities cannot detain and seize the vehicle under the Act. Such detention of the vehicle for over 3 and a 1/2 months is prima facie without any sanction of law. We further find that the police authorities has not been seized the truck under any provision of the criminal law pursuant to the lodging of an FIR against the petitioner. In that event, the commercial tax authorities had no justification to detain the truck in question.

Consequently, we are of the opinion that heavy cost/compensation is to be awarded to the petitioner, which will be recovered from the erring officials of the commercial tax department.

For this limited purpose the respondents may file a counter-affidavit within a week.

List on 29th January, 2015.

In the meanwhile, we direct that the Vehicle No. RJ01 GB 5544 detained by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad Unit No. 2-respondent No. 3 shall be released forthwith.

Certified copy of this order shall be made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges today itself.

3. Today, learned counsel appearing for respondents could not dispute that under the Statute, Tax authorities can seize goods but there is no power for seizure of vehicle. He also could not explain as to how respondent-3 could detain vehicle from 3.10.2014 to 31.10.2014, when for the first time, First Information Report was lodged and even thereafter when Police did not take custody of vehicle why the vehicle remain to be detained by respondent-3.

4. Petitioner claimed that vehicle has been financed by Bank and petitioner has been incurring continuous liability but on account of wholly illegal, unauthorized and arbitrary action on the part of respondent-3, said vehicle remained detained with respondent-3 for almost three months causing huge loss to petitioner. It could not ply for all this period only because of the high handedness of respondent-3.

5. Since it is not in dispute that respondent-3 had no authority to seize vehicle in question, we are satisfied that detention of vehicle on 3.10.2014 by respondent 3 and thereafter was wholly illegal, unauthorized and without jurisdict