JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the recovery of Rs. 3000/- made from him and to issue a direction to the respondents to refund the amount recovered on 15.2.1993 vide Receipt Anx.1 dated 15.2.93. 2. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent No.2 in recovering Rs. 3000/- from the petitioner is illegal as he has no power to inspect, search, seize or detain the vehicle of the petitioner. He has submitted that the General Manager, Haryana Roadways is merely an officer of the State Road Transport Corporation who cannot be as a person falling within the meaning of the expression `other person' as per Section 129 or 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He has relied on Ishwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1987 SC 628 . 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly the petitioner has not been able to show that he had a valid permit where his vehicle was seized, therefore, no case for indulgence under extra ordinary jurisdiction is made out. 4. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that he was the owner of the vehicle or was having genuine documents. The petitioner has only filed a receipt Ex.1 showing that Rs. 3,000/- were recovered from him and that too has been recovered as compound fee. In view of this no interference can be made by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the case cited by Mr. Maheshwari is not of any help to him. However, the petitioner will be free to avail any other remedy, if permissible to him according to law. 5. With the above observations, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******