COURT OF JUDSCATURE CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR li-S, S2£..i i'BLE S'i- RESPONDENTi Wr&Pstition_No._448.3_of200< Virendra Kumar Pathak s/o Late Shri Sadanand Pathak, aged about 47 years, Registered Owner of Bus No. CG-15- ZA/0308 r/o Darripara, Amblkapur, District Surguja, C.G. Vs. 4. The State of Chhattisgarh, Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. The Senior Superintendent or Poiice, Biiaspur, AS & Post Bilaspur, District iilaspur, C.G. The Sfation House Officer, Civf! Lines Poiice StatioR, At & Post Biiaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Shri Ram Ftnance Company Ltd., Ayappa Street, Chennas, District Chennai, Tamilnadu. Ths Branch Manager, Shri Ram Finance Compnay Ltd., Rajiv Plaza, Near Bus Stand, AT & Post Bilaspur, District Biiaspur, C.G. Present: Shri A.K. Prasad, iearned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, ieamed G.A. ror respondents 1to 3. (Passed on 24"' August, 2006) To put the grievancs of the petltloner, in crux is that the 5 i'espondent vi/ithout any mannsr of right or interest in the bus owned by the petitioner highhandedty seized the same on 01/09/2004 when it was comlng to Bilaspur from Ambikapur, carrying passengers, and that dsspite iodging a complaint wlth the jutisdictional police, no action was taken againsf the 5 respondent. So alieging, the petitioner has soughf for the foliowing reiiefs: "7. ReSieffe) Soua'nt: -———. ,. -—__.— _ -<s- (0. (") O") [IV) That the respondent no.2 and 3 may kindiy bs directed to take action on the F.1.R. lodged by the petitioner. That necessary action may kindly bs taken against respondent no.5 who without there being any authority of iaw, has detained th®Bus and he may kindly be directed to reiease Sus No.CG-15-ZA/0308. That action may kindiy be taken against the poiice personnei who hsve not taken any action on the F.i.R. lodged by the petitioner. Any other reilef deemed fit in ths present facts and circumstances of this case may aiso be awarded to the petitioner." ^ (2) it is needless to state that the dispute brought before the Court does not involve enforcing any pubiic law obiigation. if {he fsfth respondent without any manner of right and legal justification had seized and detained the motor-vehicie owned by the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to work out private !aw review remedies before the jurisdictlona! civl! Court and/or prosecute him In a crimina! Saw Court if the complained act is an offence. Resewing that liberty to the petitioner, the writ petitlon is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice 'l