CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6770 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 26,2011 Anil Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Ramesh Sindhar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Aggrieved against the action of the respondents in issuing challan, the petitioner has approached this Court, alleging that the action is illegal and arbitrary. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3, who is Work Manager with Haryana Roadways, Karnal, has been given an officiating charge of Flying Squad and has issued this challan, for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6770 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 2 }: which he would not have any jurisdiction. The petitioner complains that he has suffered immense hardship on account of his documents having been retained. As per the petitioner, when he approached Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, he has been told that the courts at Chandigarh will have jurisdiction. The courts at Chandigarh, however, informed the petitioner that he would have to approach the Regional Transport Authority at Karnal. Chandigarh police, in the meantime, has also impounded the bus as the same is not carrying licence or registration certificate. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court through the present writ petition. The respondents in the reply have clarified that the order, Annexure P-3, has already been withdrawn by the Government. It is, however, pointed out that the permit in question possessed by the petitioner was tourist permit/national permit for the purpose of plying vehicle as a Taxi and not as a Stage carriage permit. When the case came up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner was required to make submission as to how the writ petition would be competent to challenge the challan, which has been issued to him as the same is open to be dealt with by a Court of law in the normal course. The counsel could not make any meaningful submission to show his right to maintain present writ petition against the order of issuing challan. If such a mode is left open, then the writ court would get flooded. The police, in routine, is issuing challan and these may be well within their jurisdiction to do so. In certain cases, where the jurisdiction is exceeded, the same has to be pleaded before the Court competent to deal with the issue CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6770 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 3 }: arising out of challan and the matter, in my considered opinion, can not be agitated through a writ petition, which is an extra ordinary jurisdiction. The issuance of a challan is basically on account of violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, against which remedy is available in accordance with law, which ought to be exercised instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. April 26,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE