Sandeep Tomar v. Additional Director Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Ors

ORDER %

09.11.2011 With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and disposal. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after some hearing, states that he would preferan appeal againstthe order dated 28^"^ October,2011, wherein he will raise all the questions of facts and law including those raised in the present writ petition. He states that an appeal will be filed within a period of ten days from today. The petitioner has raised a number of grounds including the contention that the entire adjudication process is without jurisdiction as the motorcycle in question was earlier confiscated and released. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. i -i Therefore, it is submitted by the petitioner that second adjudication proceedings are void. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that the adjudication proceedings are barred by time. These contentions and grounds can be raised in the appellate proceedings. We dispose of the present writ petition with liberty that the petitionermay file an appeal againstthe order dated 28"' October, 2011 along with an application seeking waiver of pre deposit. If any such application for waiver of pre deposit is made, the same will be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law and due weightage will be given to the contentions raised by the petitioner, which have been recorded above. The petitioner further states that the petitioner will aiso file an application for permission to use the motorcycle after obtaining consent/no objection from Jaspal Singh, who has been given possession of the motorcycle pursuant to Superdari. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the proviso to Section 110 relied upon by the respondent-Directorateof RevenueIntelligenceis not applicable as in the present case there is no restraintorder, but the motorcyclehas been released on Superdari. It is further stated that proviso requires issue of notice to the owner and as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the petitioner is the registeredowner of the motorcycleand no notice was issued to him. The said contention/prayer if made before the appellateauthorityif admissiblewill beconsideredasper law. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner shall move an application before the Directorate of Revenue Intelligenceto use the motorcycle.It is open to the petitionerto move such an application.If^adb-aaapplicationis filed, the same will be considered as per law. The appeal will be disposed of within a period of two months from the date the same is filed. Dasti under signature of the Court Master. NOVEMBER 09, 2011 NA /

SANJIV KHANNA, J. R.V.EASWAR, J. M

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI -I- W.P.(C) 6311/2011 SANDEEP TOMAR Petitioner Through Mr. V.V. Gautam and Mohd. Amanullah, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE AND ORS Respondent Through Mr. Satish Aggarwal and Mr. Rajindra Verma, Advs. Mr. Mukesh Anand and Mr.Shailesh Tiwari, Advs. for R-2&3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR