IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-15894 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.8.2010 Jagjit Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana. Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** ORDER This petition has been filed for issuance of directions to respondents No. 3 and 4 for taking appropriate legal action against respondent No.5 who had forcibly taken away the vehicle of the petitioner. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 26.5.2010 by recording following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner: “ Argues that respondent No.5 has issued a notice to the petitioner for selling the vehicle of the petitioner which shows that the vehicle of the petitioner has been taken in possession in an illegal manner. It has been further contended that in notice it has been mentioned that vehicle will be sold within seven days of the date of notice. Crl.Misc. No.M-15894 of 2010 [2] Notice of motion for 28.7.2010. However, in the meantime, respondent No.5 is restrained from taking any action on notice, Annexure P-1. It is further contended that the vehicle of petitioner was taken in possession by respondent No.5 illegally and in violation of the ratio of jument rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Parkash Kaur and others, JT 2007 (4) SC 39 and judgment passed by this Court in Narender Kumar Singla v. State of Punjab, 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 890” While issuing notice of motion, respondent No.5 was directed to restore possession of vehicle in dispute in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Manager, ICICI Bank Limited v. Parkash Kaur and others JT 2007 (4) SC 39 . During the pendency of this petition, respondent No.5 gave an undertaking to restore possession of the vehicle to the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to bring a demand draft of Rs.80,000/- on the next date of hearing. Case came up for hearing on 30.7.2010 and learned counsel for respondent No.5 stated before the Court that the vehicle in question has already been released and document has been signed by the petitioner but learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the release was only in the papers whereas the vehicle was not in a working condition. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Crl.Misc. No.M-15894 of 2010 [3] parties, petitioner as well as respondent No.5 were directed to file their respective affidavits in this regard. Respondent No.5 has filed affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that the release order in favour of the petitioner was issued on 29.7.2010 but the petitioner did not arrange the amount of Rs.80,000/- and intentionally did not take delivery of the truck. The release order has also been signed by the petitioner. It is also mentioned that the petitioner himself removed nozzle from the self and because of that the vehicle was not in a working condition. On 30.7.2010 the vehicle was got repaired and a telegram was also sent on 31.7.2010 for taking delivery of the vehicle. The report was also got prepared from surveyor who had stated that the vehicle was in good running condition. It has also been mentioned in the affidavit that the petitioner had got the same vehicle financed from Megma, Finance Corporation Limited and was defaulter for making payment to said Company and later on, the loan was taken over by Siriram Transport Finance Company Limited and again the petitioner defaulted in making payment. The case came up for hearing on 3.8.2010. Respondent No.5 filed his affidavit in compliance of order dated 30.7.2010 but neither any affidavit was filed by the petitioner nor he was present in the Court. The matter was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner for the next day i.e. 4.8.2010. Today also, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that the petitioner had informed him on telephone on 3.8.2010 that he was coming with a draft of Rs.80,000/- but even today he has not come and petitioner could not be contacted as his mobile was switched off. In Crl.Misc. No.M-15894 of 2010 [4] absence of any instruction from the petitioner, no statement can be made with regard to payment of the said amount. Although the vehicle has already been released by respondent No.5 but delivery has not been taken by the petitioner which can be taken on payment of Rs.80,000/-. In view fo the facts mentioned above, the present petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE August 4, 2010. raghav