AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 1102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 5. 2000 respectively. 3. In this petition, we had passed an order on 24.5.2000 for releasing of the aforesaid trucks on the petitioners' furnishing security other than cash and bank guarantee to the satisfaction of respondent No. 2. We are informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in pursuance of the interim order the aforesaid, trucks have been released in favour of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the respondents had no Jurisdiction to seize the trucks and he has claimed damages. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. It has been repeatedly held by several Division Benches of this Court that trucks cannot be seized under the U. P. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation or to pay its value if it had disabled itself from returning it either by its own act or by act of its agents and servants'. It was extended further even to bona fide action of the authorities if it was contrary to law in Lala Bishambar Nath v. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. AIR 1973 SC 1289. It was held that where the authorities could not have taken any action against the dealer and their order was invalid, 'it is immaterial that the respondents had acted bona fide and in the interest of preservation of public health. Their motive may be good but their orders are illegal. They would accordingly be liable for any loss caused to the appellants by their action.' The theoretical concept that the King can do no wrong has been a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssary, 'to consider whether there is any rational dividing line between the so-called sovereign and proprietary and commercial functions for determining the liability of the State'. In any case the law has always maintained that the public authorities who are entrusted with statutory function cannot act negligently. As far back as 1878 the law was succinctly explained in Geddis v. Proprietors of Bann Reservoir, (1878) 3 App Cas 430 thus. "I take it, without citing cases, that it is now thoroughly well established that no action will lie for doing that which the Legislature has authorised, if it be done without negligence, although it does occasion damage to anyone ; but an action does lie for doing what the Legislature has author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e action of administrative authority. But where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under protective cover. When a citizen seeks to recover compensation from a public authority in respect of, injuries suffered by him for capricious exercise of power and the National Commission finds it duly proved then it has a statutory obligation to award the same? It was never more necessary than today when even social obligations are regulated by grant of statutory powers. The test of permissive form of grant are over. it is now imperative and implicit in the exercise of power that it should be for the sake of soc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n seized for long periods by the Trade Tax authorities although the law has been settled long time back that there is no power in the Trade Tax authorities to do so. 9. The learned standing counsel has relied on Rule 84 (1) of the U. P. Trade-tax Rules, which states that the officer empowered under Section 13 or 13A or under Rule 3A or 4 may stop the vehicle and keep it stationary as long as required by such officer. In our opinion, Rule 84 must be read as a whole and it cannot be read in part. The purpose of Rule 84 is to see that there is no evasion of trade-tax and hence it permits inspection of goods and detention of goods where the officer concerned is prima Jade of the opinion that tax is being evaded and the law is being infringed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... seized the vehicles on 4.4.2000 directed on the same day that the petitioner's vehicle is not only detained but the petitioner has to arrange for security of the goods and vehicle, vide Annexurc-2. The petitioner made representation vide Annexures-5 and 6 praying that the vehicle be released and submitted that the petitioner was suffering daily loss of Rs. 4,000 due to detention of the vehicle. However, the vehicle was only released in pursuance of the interim order dated 21.4.2000 on 25.4.2000. 14. We were inclined to grant compensation to the petitioners in these cases instead of relegating the petitioner to file civil suits as we want to slop the illegal practice of detaining and seizing of the vehicles by the U. P. trade-tax aut....