HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 9308 of 2026 Along with : 1. Writ - A No. 13486 of 2026: Arvaj Versus State of U.P. and 2 others 2. Writ - A No. 13485 of 2026: Raghvendra Singh Versus State of U.P. and 2 others 3. Writ - A No. 13488 of 2026: Pawan Kumar Versus State of U.P. and 2 others Court No. - 21 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. 1. The writ petition is leading case among four writ petitions listed at item nos. 71 to 71.3. Facts are similar, inasmuch as, petitioners complain, the vehicles were wrongly seized. On moving of the petitions Mr. Alok Kumar Dwivedi, learned advocate appearing for petitioners had submitted that challans were also not issued. There was direction for filing counter. Pleadings are complete. Respondent no. 2 (the transport company) and respondent no. 3 (police) both have filed separate counters. 2. Paragraph-14 of the counter filed by respondent no. 2 (the transport company) is reproduced below. "14. That the contents of Paras 2 & 3 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated, hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devendra Kumar Singh, Dharmendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ashique Khan .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and 2 others .....Respondent(s) that during the course of checking the concerned driver well knowingly the shortcoming of the vehicle documents and weighment of the vehicle left the vehicle insecurely on the road to avoid any kind of seizure proceeding. Later on, the task team reveal that there are various shortcoming because the said vehicle was carrying 23 tones excess Maurang of prescribed limit for the vehicle and the permit was also expired and the road tax was only paid upto 31.03.2026, therefore, the concerned team rightly seized the vehicle in accordance with the law. True copy of the challan/seizure of the vehicle is being annexed herewith and marked as annexure-C.A.-2 to this affidavit." The disclosure are photocopies of the challans. Petitioners in paragraph-16 of the rejoinder has dealt with said paragraph-14. Paragraph-16 from the rejoinder is reproduced below. "16. The contents of Paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit are false, wrong and vague specifically denied. In reply thereto, the deponent specifically reaffirms the pleadings made in Paragraph 3, 4, 11, 22 and 34 of the writ petition and submits it is specifically denied that the vehicle was carrying 23 tonnes of excess Maurang or that the driver left the vehicle insecurely to avoid seizure. The claim of 23 tonnes excess cargo is completely unsubstantiated as no spot weighment slip from an authorized weighbridge was ever drawn up under section 114 of the MV Act or provided to the petitioner." 3. It is clear from analysis of the pleadings that issuance of the challans have not been disputed. The dispute is regarding contents of them. It is a dispute on facts. We will not interfere. Petitioner is to find his remedy. For the purpose, in event petitioner expeditiously approaches for statutory remedy, there should not be question raised on delay. 4. Mr. Dwivedi submits, in respect of one of the challans (subject matter of Writ-A no. 13488 of 2026) entire deposit has been made but the vehicle not released. The submission stands recorded. Petitioner may rely on certified copy of this order along with payment receipt corresponding to the challans and approach for release of the vehicle(s). 5. The writ petitions are disposed of. (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Satya Veer Singh,J.) September 16, 2026 Shiraz WRIA No. 9308 of 2026 2 Digitally signed by :- SHIRAZ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad