Smt. P. Aaliya v. Tana, Chittoor District & Ors.

High Court dated 4.9.2006. When he verified, he found that no complaint was lodged either by 1st respondent or 2nd respondent. Therefore, no case was registered at Gangadhara Nellore police station. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5) The 1st respondent filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit denying the facts mentioned by the 3rd respondent. He reiterated that the driver took away the lorry without any authority and on that he made a telephone call followed by written complaint to the Station House Officer, Gangadhara Nellore, evidenced by dispatch register. The very writ petitioner mentioned that the vehicle was with the 3rd respondent. It was also referred to by R.2 in the confiscation order dated 15.6.2006. The allegation of R3 that the lorry came into his custody on 3.8.2006 is false. He requested the Station House Officer, Gangadhara Nellore vide letter Rc.No.25/06/Jr.CTL, enquiring whether F.I.R. was registered on his complaint.

He did not receive any reply so far. 6) It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 02 T 6255. It is also not in dispute that when the vehicle was transporting 250 baskets and 60 bags of tamarind, the vehicle was detained on the ground that it was not carrying requisite documents. The 2nd respondent detained the lorry on 15.3.2006. The assertion of the 1st respondent was that 250 baskets of tamarind belong to one Rasheed and the remaining 60 bags of tamarind belong to the husband of the petitioner. 7) The question whether the tamarind was liable for confiscation or not would be determined in the enquiry conducted by R1 and R2. The petitioner questions the propriety of R1 and R2 to detain her vehicle. This Court by virtue of an interim order dated 4.9.2006 directed the 3rd respondent to release the vehicle to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner furnishes immovable property security for an amount ofRs.50,000/- to the satisfaction the 3rd respondent.

Accordingly, the vehicle was released by the 3rd respondent. 8) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the department is not empowered to detain the goods vehicle and therefore, the action of R1 and R2 in detaining the vehicle and entrusting to the police is illegal. Section 45 of the Act, authorizes establishment of check posts to prevent or check evasion of tax. The check post officer who mans the check-post is empowered to examine the contents in the vehicle and inspects all records relating to the goods which are in possession of such driver or other person in charge for the purpose of asserting whether the goods were being carried under valid documents and whether tax has been paid. 9) Rule 56(3) of the Rules empowers the officer in-charge of the check post to detain the vehicle along with the goods, if the owner or person in-charge of the goods vehicle did not comply with the provisions made under Rule 55(8), 55(9) and 55(10) of the rules.

The procedures and powers laid down in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of this rule shall be followed by the Officer in charge of the Check posts to dispose of such detained goods and vehicles. From the perusal of the above provisions, there is undoubted authority on the officers of the check post to detain the goods vehicle, however, not beyond a time necessary. 10) Coming to facts, the petitioner herself admits in her petition that R.1 seized vehicle on 16.3.2006 and kept with R3. R1 asserts that on

15.3.2006 when the vehicle was transporting goods without proper documents, it was detained. The police alleges that R3 through his letter