IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (261) CRM-M-28037-2025 Decided on : 22.09.2025 JAI MATA DURGA TRANSPORT CO. ……Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ……Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate and Mr. Damanjeet Singh Batalvi, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. Divyam Suri, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE (Oral) 1. The petition in hand has been preferred under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the following substantive prayer(s):- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the appropriate direction may kindly be issued to the respondent No.5 not to interfere in the free plying of the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No. PB65BB8545 in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in RCR Criminal 2007(2) page 76 titled as "ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Parkash Kaur and others" and Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in SLP (Crl.) No. 4935 of 2006 decided on 15.5.2008 in case titled as "ICICI Bank Vs. Shanti Devi Sharma & Ors", keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case; in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for sometime has limited his prayer by stating that he would be satisfied, for the nonce, if a direction is issued to respondent No.3 (Senior Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar) to consider and take a conscious decision on the representation JATIN 2025.09.22 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28037-2025 P a g e dated 21.04.2025 made by the petitioner (copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition in hand) in a time-bound manner. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the rival party(s) and upon perusal of the paper-book, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the petition in hand as follows: (i) Respondent No.3 (Senior Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar) is mandated to look into the representation dated 21.04.2025(Annexure P- 3) moved by the petitioner, objectively consider the grievance(s) raised therein after affording opportunity to all concerned & take ratiocinated decision thereupon within a period of 15 days from today. Said decision be conveyed to the petitioner within 7 days thereafter. It is expected that the said officer, while deciding the said representation, shall take into consideration the dicta of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Parkash Kaur and others (JT-2007(4) SC 39) and Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v/s S Vijayalakhsmi 2012(1) SCC 1. (ii) No order as to costs. (SUMEET GOEL) 22.09.2025 JUDGE jatin Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No JATIN 2025.09.22 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document