IN THE HIGE GOURT OF GHEA%TIsGARH gw ExLASPUR (CGE. = Writ ?e@itio Nae Jaggr 7’ /40a2 Paw. ti one!- :: Nimal Eingm 5mg 01‘ ahm Quru‘bachan $ingh9 agea about 27 Ki%%a Now years, 29£Fi3 r/a Bhuai, Seator N09 §i sm‘tce; II, Quarter Durg v. //’ (GG). Li V8? $18 :gi. The State of Chhatusgarh, wraugh the Secretary, Department of ’i‘rwsgort, 3.4K» Bhawan, Raipur (SGL The wax orrtcar/ Addl. Regional ifransport Officer imrg (ceie 5’. ahri Um; Chandrawanéli. Incharge Flying $quade, Transport Baparmem Burg (CGL. %%* x WRIT PETITION UWER ARTICLE: 32% OF THE GONS‘PITU‘PION OF ENBIA : // " HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Writ Petition No. 1689 of 2002 .’? ,."‘ Shri B. K. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' A. S. Kachhawaha, Govemment Advocaie for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ORDER (Passed on this 14th day of F‘ebmary, 2007) 1. Learned counsel appealing for the petiu'oner submits that without issuing demand notice and passing the assessment onier, the respondents No. 2 and 3 have confiscated the vehicle in dispute bearing registration number M.P.-24-C/2119 on 7.8.2002, despite the order dated 22.2.2002 passed by this Court in regard to the same vehicle in W.P.No. 2299/2001. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the respondents No. 2 and 3 are dixected to release the said vehicle to the petitioner, forthwith, in the case the vehicle has been seized Without following the due process of law. However, the liberty is reserved to the respondents No. 2 and 3 to proceed in accordance with law. i 3. In View of the foregoing, the matter stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Cern’fied copy, as per Rules. go Sdl- Saesh K. Agnihom Judge .2. JV n Thakur :r Petitioner Ninnal Singh Versus Respondents ’ ; The State of Chhattisgarh 35 , others