JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the vehicle of the petitioner forthwith in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing registration no. UP 21 BN 9836. It is stated that the said truck of the petitioner was illegally seized by the police and further the challan was issued under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 on 10.04.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, in any case, the petitioner cannot be legally held responsible for the mining act for which no notice is given to him, as reflected in the challan. It is also submitted that the petitioner has also furnished requisite challan/fee.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle should not be and cannot be withheld for illegal mining, which has not been stated in the challan. This submission has some force. Naturally, petitioner cannot be held responsible for that offence, which is not mentioned in challan.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the vehicle was carrying sand/dirt. Copy of invoice has also been annexed with the writ petition.

6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that police has seized the vehicle under Sections 181/39/102/146/146/194/207 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The driver of the vehicle made a statement that:

“1. He will appear before the authority on 09.05.2018.

2. He shall appear before the authority and shall be liable to answer the charges put under Sections 181/39/102/146/146/194/207 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 leveled against him.

3. He shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as surety in favour of the state in case of failure to appear before the authority."

7. It is further submitted that since the authorities concerned are not releasing the truck of the petitioner, therefore, petitioner has no remedy available to him except to approach this Court for seeking relief as above.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment passed by the learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Crl) No.366 of 2018 and submitted that the same relief has been granted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since same relief has been granted by this Court, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the same relief as granted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition.

9. Perusal of the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by Co-ordinate Bench, it would reveal that neither the learned Judge has noticed the maintainability of the Writ Petition nor the maintainability was opposed by the State Law Officers.

10. Registry of this Court also failed to notice the maintainability aspect of the Writ and such cases should be placed before the Registrar Judicial for proper instructions.

11. Admittedly, the vehicle of the petitioner has been challaned by the police under Sections 181/39/102/146/146/194/207 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

12. Admittedly, the release application has not been moved before the competent authority. Neither any application moved before the authority concerned is annexed nor decision, if any, is placed on record.

13. A writ of mandamus only can be issued when the State Authorities are failed to discharge their legal obligations. There is no whisper in the Writ Petition that the petitioner has approached any authority for release of the vehicle and the authorities are not taking decision in the matter.

14. Thus, in view of this Court, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench is per in curium as the question of maintainability of Writ Petition for the relief as such has not been decided by this Court. The judgment and order passe