CWP-21570- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 126 Asgar @ Asgar Khan State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the orders dated 24.08.2023 and 08.05.2025 (Annexures P whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle bearing registration number HR 288 dated 12.08.2023, registered under Section Govansh Sanrakshan & Gosamvardhan Act, 2015, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Sections 279, 336, 307 and 120 Nuh, had been declined. 2. petitioner is the registered owner of the aforementioned vehicle, which falsely been involved and seized in the aforesaid case. The same is lying the police station concerned for the last about two years. The pet -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Asgar @ Asgar Khan Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the orders dated 24.08.2023 and 08.05.2025 (Annexures P-3 and P-9), passed by respondents whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle bearing registration number HR-74-B-9722, which was seized in case bearing FIR No. 288 dated 12.08.2023, registered under Section Govansh Sanrakshan & Gosamvardhan Act, 2015, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Sections 279, 336, 307 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, had been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the aforementioned vehicle, which falsely been involved and seized in the aforesaid case. The same is lying the police station concerned for the last about two years. The pet -1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21570-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.08.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondents MANISHA BATRA Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate The instant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the orders dated 24.08.2023 and 08.05.2025 9), passed by respondents No. 4 and 2, respectively, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle bearing 9722, which was seized in case bearing FIR No. 288 dated 12.08.2023, registered under Section 5/13(2) and 17 of the Haryana Govansh Sanrakshan & Gosamvardhan Act, 2015, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and B of IPC at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, l for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the aforementioned vehicle, which falsely been involved and seized in the aforesaid case. The same is lying the police station concerned for the last about two years. The petitioner has moved an 1- 2025 (O&M) .08.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents The instant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the orders dated 24.08.2023 and 08.05.2025 No. 4 and 2, respectively, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle bearing 9722, which was seized in case bearing FIR No. 13(2) and 17 of the Haryana Govansh Sanrakshan & Gosamvardhan Act, 2015, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and B of IPC at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, l for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the registered owner of the aforementioned vehicle, which falsely been involved and seized in the aforesaid case. The same is lying the police itioner has moved an MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.07 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21570- application before respondent No. 3 Jhirka for release of the said vehicle on superdari in favour of the petitioner but the same had been dismissed, vide impugned order dated 24.08.2023. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 dismissed by passing the impugned order 08.05.2025 without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. through the record, it is apparent that the appeal preferred by him against the order dated 24.08.2023 had been dismissed by respondent No. 2 on account of the fact that there was no appearance on hi the aforesaid lapse on the part of the petitioner was due to his carelessness but at the same time, it has also to be seen that he should not be condemned unheard. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed. The order dated 08.05.2025, passed by respondent No. 2, is hereby set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to restore the appeal and decide the same afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 05.08.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) application before respondent No. 3-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka for release of the said vehicle on superdari in favour of the petitioner but the same had been dismissed, vide impugned order dated 24.08.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an appeal against the said order before respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Nuh. However, the appeal had been dismissed by passing the impugned order 08.05.2025 without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, it is apparent that the appeal preferred by him against the order dated 24.08.2023 had been dismissed by respondent No. 2 on account of the fact that there was no appearance on hi the aforesaid lapse on the part of the petitioner was due to his carelessness but at the same time, it has also to be seen that he should not be condemned unheard. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed. The order dated 08.05.2025, passed by respondent No. 2, is hereby set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to restore the appeal and decide the same afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. .08.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka for release of the said vehicle on superdari in favour of the petitioner but the same had been dismissed, vide impugned order dated 24.08.2023. the petitioner had filed an appeal against the said order before Deputy Commissioner, Nuh. However, the appeal had been dismissed by passing the impugned order 08.05.2025 without affording ter hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, it is apparent that the appeal preferred by him against the order dated 24.08.2023 had been dismissed by respondent No. 2 on account of the fact that there was no appearance on his behalf on 08.05.2025. Obviously, the aforesaid lapse on the part of the petitioner was due to his carelessness but at the same time, it has also to be seen that he should not be condemned unheard. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 08.05.2025, passed by respondent No. 2, is hereby set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to restore the appeal and decide the same afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 2- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka for release of the said vehicle on superdari in favour of the petitioner but the same had been dismissed, vide impugned order dated 24.08.2023. the petitioner had filed an appeal against the said order before Deputy Commissioner, Nuh. However, the appeal had been dismissed by passing the impugned order 08.05.2025 without affording ter hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, it is apparent that the appeal preferred by him against the order dated 24.08.2023 had been dismissed by respondent No. 2 on account of s behalf on 08.05.2025. Obviously, the aforesaid lapse on the part of the petitioner was due to his carelessness but at the same time, it has also to be seen that he should not be condemned impugned order dated 08.05.2025, passed by respondent No. 2, is hereby set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to restore the appeal and decide the same afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the (MANISHA BATRA) MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.07 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document