Ravindra Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 12 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Ravindra Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an e-challan dated August 26, 2022, and a seizure order/report dated February 7, 2023, issued by the Station House Officer, Saifai, Etawah. He also sought a direction to transport authorities not to demand any amount regarding the e-challans and to release his vehicle. The petitioner argued that only documents can be seized under Rule 139(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act, not the vehicle itself, relying on a coordinate bench order. The respondent contended that the offenses were not limited to the Motor Vehicle Act but also included violations under the Goods and Services Tax Act and the Mining Act, with a penalty of ₹60,000 quantified under the Mining Act.

Held

The Court, without entering into the merits of the case, acknowledged that the challans under the Motor Vehicle Act are compoundable, referencing the coordinate bench order in *Suryabhan And Another*. The Court directed that the vehicle be released in favor of the petitioner upon deposit of the amount of the challan, which was ₹60,000 after penalty, totaling ₹62,050, as agreed by the petitioner, provided there were no other impediments. Furthermore, the Court directed that if the offenses under the Goods and Services Tax Act and the Mining Act are compoundable, the petitioner should move appropriate applications before the concerned authorities within three weeks for compounding. The Court expressed hope that the authorities would take a final decision on these applications within a week thereafter, in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of a vehicle is permissible under Rule 139(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act when only documents can be seized. (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of his vehicle upon deposit of compounding charges for offenses under the Motor Vehicle Act, as per previous judicial pronouncements. (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether offenses under the Goods and Services Tax Act and the Mining Act are compoundable, and if so, what is the procedure for compounding them. (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the seizure of the vehicle was illegal as only documents are seizable under Rule 139(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act. He relied on the coordinate bench order in *Suryabhan And Another Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others* (Writ - C No. 515/2023) and *Sri Rajan Yadav v. State of U.P. And 2 Others* (Writ-A No. 7562 of 2022), suggesting a deposit of ₹5,000 for compounding charges. Respondent's arguments: The Standing Counsel argued that the petitioner had committed offenses not only under the Motor Vehicle Act but also under the Goods and Services Tax Act and the Mining Act. A notice for penalty under the Mining Act had been issued, quantifying the penalty at ₹60,000, and proceedings under the Goods and Services Tax Act were also initiated.