JUDGMENT The present Writ Application was moved by the writ petitioner Sri Mrityunjoy Singh through his learned Advocate on record Mr. Samarjit Ghosh on 10th May, 1996 challenging the seizure of the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. WML-1095. It was alleged in the writ petition, inter alia that the said vehicle was proceeding through Cuttack in Orissa when it was intercepted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector and certain documents including Registration Certificate, Permit and Tax Token were seized by the Authorities at Orissa for taking further action for carrying goods allegedly wit bout bill of loading. It was further alleged in the writ petition that on or about 2nd March, 1996, when the said vehicle was carrying some goods and was passing through Burdwan District the said vehicle was intercepted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Burdwan. He asked for production of relevant documents; the driver of the vehicle produced the documents which were in his possession before the Inspector and allegedly explained to the Motor Vehicles Inspector that the other relevant documents of the vehicles were seized by the Authorities in Cuttack and hence the said driver produced xerox copies of such other documents including tax token showing payment of tax. It was alleged in the petition inspite of the same the said Inspector, Burdwan seized the available documents and issued a seizure list and the petitioner was asked to appear before him on 27th March, 1996. 2. It is on the aforesaid averments made in the writ petition this Court prima fade being satisfied that the vehicle of the petitioner could not be seized for want of documents when the driver of the vehicle produced before the Authorities xerox copies of the same and his inability to produce the documents was apparently beyond his control the same being seized by the Authorities at Cuttack, an interim order was granted on 10th May, 1996 to the effect that in the event the writ petitioner furnishes a Bank Guarantee amounting to Rs. 75,000/- in favour of Motor Vehicles Inspector, Burdwan, the vehicle in question shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. It was further directed that the petitioner would be liable to produce the vehicle as and when directed by the respondent No.2 until further orders of the Court. 3. 75,000/- in favour of Motor Vehicles Inspector, Burdwan, the vehicle in question shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. It was further directed that the petitioner would be liable to produce the vehicle as and when directed by the respondent No.2 until further orders of the Court. 3. It is also to be placed on record that on the said date before such interim order was granted this Court initially wanted to direct furnishing of a Bank Guarantee for a higher amount. But as the learned Advocate on record appearing for the petitioner after taking instructions from his, client who was present in Court expressed the inability of the petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee for a higher, amount it was ultimately directed that Bank Guarantee for Rs. 75,000/-shall be furnished. 4. Thereafter on furnishing such Bank Guarantee the vehicle was released by the respondents. 5. Subsequently an application for vacating and/or modification of the said interim order was filed on behalf of the respondents contending, inter alia. that the dues from the petitioner towards Motor Vehicles Tax, additional tax and special fee would amount to Rs 2,02,375/- from 31st October, 1991 to 31st May, 1996 approximately and therefore under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act the petitioner cannot obtain release of vehicle on furnishing of Bank Guarantee for Rs.75,000/- 'only and the petitioner therefore should be directed to furnish Bank Guarantee for the entire amount. While moving the aforesaid application for vacating interim order the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents further submitted on the &aid date namely on 27th August, 1996, that in the meantime on enquiry from the appropriate authorities it has been ascertained by the respondents that the documents which were produced by the petitioner before the respondents and copies of which were annexed to the writ petition, namely, tax token showing payment of Tax, National Permit etc., are all forged documents. The respondents however on the said date were directed to file an affidavit in respect thereof. Thereafter an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondents. In such affidavit specific allegation was made by the respondents that on enquiry from Taxing Officer they have been informed by the said RTO that no such Tax Token was ever issued by them a purported copy which were annexed to the writ petition showing payment of road tax upto May 1996. Thereafter an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondents. In such affidavit specific allegation was made by the respondents that on enquiry from Taxing Officer they have been informed by the said RTO that no such Tax Token was ever issued by them a purported copy which were annexed to the writ petition showing payment of road tax upto May 1996. The communication between the RTO and the Taxing Officer were annexed to the affidavit. It was further stated in the said affidavit that a comparison of the sale letter along with the Registration Certificate would indicate that even the Chassis No. in respect thereof did not tally. It was further indicated in the said affidavit that even the National Permit a copy which was annexed to the writ petitioner appear to be fictitious because on enquiry by the respondents they have been informed by the appropriate authorities that no such National Permit was issued by them. 6. But before filing of such affidavit, on 27th August, 1996, at the time of hearing of the application for vacating interim order when copies of such correspondence with the appropriate authorities were produced before the Court by Mr. Khan the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents and it was submitted all such documents, copies of which were annexed to the writ petition were forged documents, the Court permitted the respondents to immediately encash the Bank Guarantee. It was further directed on 27th August, 1996, that the writ petitioner Sri Mrityunjoy Singh of 2/3, Ekbalpur Lane, Calcutta-23, shall remain present in the Court on the next adjourned date and he was also directed to produce the vehicle before the Officer-in-Charge, Burdwan, Police Station. On the next adjourned date however neither the petitioner appeared before this Court in spite of such order nor such vehicle was produced before the Officer-in-Charge, Burdwan, Police Station as directed On the contrary on 10th September, 1996. On the next adjourned date however neither the petitioner appeared before this Court in spite of such order nor such vehicle was produced before the Officer-in-Charge, Burdwan, Police Station as directed On the contrary on 10th September, 1996. in course of the bearing of the application for vacating interim order attention of the Court was also drawn by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents that the address of the writ petitioner is different from the address given in the Registration Certificate, a copy of which was annexed to the writ petition inasmuch as whereas in the writ petition such address was given as 2/3, Ekbalpur Lane in the Registration Certificate the address of the petitioner was given as 99/2, Ekbalpur Lane. Thereafter it also appeared to this Court on examining the writ petition that in the affidavit affirmed in the said writ petition the writ petitioners address was originally typed as 48, Trenching Ground Road, Calcutta, which was subsequently stuck out and was changed to 2/3, Ekbalpur Lane by writing in hand. 7. As the petitioner was not appearing before the Court inspite of the order of the Court and therefore there was every reason to believe that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding the process of law now that his misdeeds have come to light, I directed the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Detective Dept. of Calcutta to ensure his presence on the next adjourned date and to bring him under arrest, if necessary. 8. On the next adjourned date, that is on 17th September, 1996, it appeared from the report of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Detective Dept., Calcutta, that on enquiry at 2/3, Ekbalpur Lane, the writ petitioner could not be found out and it was detected that he never resided in the said address and that ultimately on enquiry it was found out that the petitioner is a permanent resident of R/48. Trenching Ground Road, Calcutta-24, under Police Station Metiaburuj which is since renumbered as premises No. D-166, Trenching Ground Road, Calcutta-24. In the said report it was also stated that the brother of the petitioner informed the police that the petitioner Sri Mrityunjoy Singh had gone to Bangalore on 4th September, 1996, and would come back between 10th of October, 1996, and 15th of October, 1996. 9. In the said report it was also stated that the brother of the petitioner informed the police that the petitioner Sri Mrityunjoy Singh had gone to Bangalore on 4th September, 1996, and would come back between 10th of October, 1996, and 15th of October, 1996. 9. After going through the report as It appeared to this Court that such story made out about the non availability of the petitioner for going to Bangalore was not believable for the reason indicated in the order dated 17th September, 1996, this Court also issued suo motu a rule for contempt against the petitioner for wilful and deliberate violation of the order of the Court dated 27th August, 1996, by not appearing before this Court and by not producing the vehicle before the Officer-in-Charge, Burdwan Police Station. 10. On 27th September, 1996, the petitioner Mrityunjoy Singh was produced by the police under arrest before this Court. Mr. Binod Bihari Girl with Mr. Yamin Ali appeared for the said petitioner being engaged by Mrityunjoy Singh contending; inter alia on that day, the petitioner Mrityunjoy Singh never moved the petition and he never instructed the Advocate on record Mr. Samarjit Ghosh to move the writ petition and the signature on the Vokalotnama in the writ petition is not his signature and there was every probability that someone else impersonating Mrityunjoy Singh moved the writ petition. It was further submitted that Mrityunjoy Singh is too young and is a student of Bhawanlpur Education College. On the same day in course of bearing the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Burdwan who was present in the Court and was Instructing Mr. Khan appearing for the respondents identified Sri Dhananjoy Singh son of Amar Singh, elder brother of Mrityunjoy Singh to be the person who communicated the order of the Court to the said Inspector (Non-technical) namely Sri Biswajit Majumdar and obtained the release of the vehicle. 11. On the aforesaid date that is on 27th September, 1996, a stand was also taken on behalf of the petitioners Mrityunjoy Singh by said learned Advocate Mr. Binod Bihari Giri that vehicle in question was sold by the petitioner to one Bijoy Pandey of Panihati in the year 1994. The Dy. Commissioner was also directed to enquire into all such matters. On the next adjourned date that is on 4th October, 1996, the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Detective Dept. Binod Bihari Giri that vehicle in question was sold by the petitioner to one Bijoy Pandey of Panihati in the year 1994. The Dy. Commissioner was also directed to enquire into all such matters. On the next adjourned date that is on 4th October, 1996, the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Detective Dept. submitted another report to the effect that on enquiry the aforesaid Bijoy Pandey could not be traced in his address either at Dunlop or Panihati supplied by Sri Dhananjoy Singh, elder brother of the petitioner; but on 3rd October, 1996, the Said Police Authorities however could trace the vehicle in question and seized the same under the order of the Court which is now being kept in custody in the office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Detective Dept. under the order of the Court On 4th October. 1996, a number of documents were filed by Mr. Giri appearing for Sri Mrityunjoy Singh including a purported money receipt granted by Sri Mrityunjoy Singh for the sum of Rs.85.000/- for the purported sale of the said vehicle to said Bijoy Pandey. Such documents were kept in record. Subsequently another report has been submitted by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Detective Dept, Calcutta, dated 11th October, 1996, wherefrom it appears that an Officer of the Detective Department proceeded to Gauhati of Assam in search of said Bijoy Pandey and the vehicle in question but Bijoy Pandey could not be traced there. 12. It is also to be placed on record that up till now the said Bijoy Pandey to whom allegedly the vehicle was sold by the petitioner in 1994 could not be traced. 13. A report has been submitted by the Police that the said Dhananjoy Singh, the elder brother of the petitioner has made a Dumber of signatures voluntarily as Mrityunjoy Singh. A comparison of such signature with the signature appearing in the Vokalotnama of the writ petition indicates that such signatures have been made in such Vokalotnama as also in the said documents in the same hand writing and therefore there is a very strong probability that the writ petition was moved by the said Dhananjoy, Singh, the elder brother of Mrityunjoy Singh impersonating as Mrityunjoy Singh. In fact, it is also to be placed on record. In fact, it is also to be placed on record. the Advocate on record of the said writ petition Samarjit Ghosh in Court on a query by the Court, also identified Sri Dhananjoy Singh as the person who instructed him to move the writ petition representing himself as Mrityunjoy Singh. 14. It will thus appear from the facts stated above that right from the beginning said Mrityunjoy Singh and Dhananjoy Singh proceeded in a pre-planned manner for the purpose of getting the said vehicle released through order of the Court by committing fraud upon the Court. Not only copies of forged and manufactured documents were used in the writ petition as Annexure to the same, even there was impersonation of Mrityunjoy Singh by Dhananjoy Singh by presenting himself to be Mrityunjoy Singh and signing in the Vokalotnama as Mrityunjoy Singh. The whole motive appears to be evade Government revenue and to get the vehicle released and by obtaining an order of the Court by mis-representing the facts and using forged documents and thereafter to avoid the process of the law by removing the vehicle to an unknown destination and by pretending that the writ application was never moved by the writ petitioner and therefore he was no way responsible for the same. 15. After examining the materials produced before this Court as also the said police reports it appears to this Court even the aforesaid person Bijoy Pandey whom the writ petitioner claims to have transferred the vehicle in question in 1994 is non-existent and such a story was made out by the petitioner to avoid the process of the law and to remove the vehicle. Apart from the fact such Bijoy Pandey cannot be traced either in address supplied by said Sri Dhananjoy Singh or in any other places, the documents showing transfer of the vehicle to said Bijoy Pandey on payment of Rs. 85,000/- by him produced by the petitioner Mrityunjoy singh before this Court through Mr Giri also appears to be manufactured one. Such documents have produced in original; but if such a sale really would have taken place such documents specially the receipt showing such payment should have been in possession of the transferee Bijoy Pandey and could not have produced by the alleged transferor Mrityunjoy Singh. 16. Such documents have produced in original; but if such a sale really would have taken place such documents specially the receipt showing such payment should have been in possession of the transferee Bijoy Pandey and could not have produced by the alleged transferor Mrityunjoy Singh. 16. The petitioner Mrityunjoy Singh therefore also does not appear to this Court to be innocent at all but very much involved along with his elder brother Dhananjoy Singh in the matter of commission of such fraud upon the Court. 17. The same now having come to light and it is being the specific case of the respondents that further amount of tax and additional tax and penalty is due in respect of the said vehicle the petitioner cannot be permitted to avoid. the process of law or evade payment of Government Revenue in the manner aforesaid. He has also violated the specific order passed by this Court for production of the vehicle as also condition of the interim order for production of the vehicle when directed to do so by the respondent No.2. 18. For the reasons aforesaid I am of the view the interim order which was granted by this Court cannot re main and the same is liable to be vacated. 19. That apart the writ Court being also a Court of equity can heardly come to aid of a person who not only bas not come before this Court with clean hands but consciously attempted to defraud the Court. 20. The writ application is also therefore liable to be dismissed, and the same is hereby dismissed, with costs assessed at 200 G. M. to be paid by the petitioner to the Taxing Officer Motor Vehicles Department, Burdwan. All interim order stand vacated. 21. Since the petitioner obtained an interim order from this Court by practising fraud upon the Court and by using forged documents in the manner aforesaid and thereby evaded payment of Government Revenue, I direct that the vehicle in question seized by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Detective Department shall be handed over to the Taxing Officer Motor Vehicles Department, Burdwan and the said Authority shall be entitled to recover the amount of Tax and Penalty which was due to be paid in respect of the said vehicle by selling the same in public auction. Commissioner of Police, Detective Department shall be handed over to the Taxing Officer Motor Vehicles Department, Burdwan and the said Authority shall be entitled to recover the amount of Tax and Penalty which was due to be paid in respect of the said vehicle by selling the same in public auction. Since the petitioner Mrityunjoy Singh and his elder brother Dhananjoy Singh in collusion with each other have practised fraud upon the Court in the manner aforesaid and obtained order from the Court by using documents which appears to be forged and fabricated and the said Dhananjoy Singh the elder brother of the petitioner has also made impersonation in the manner stated above. I direct that the Registrar; Appellate Side, of this Hon'ble Court will file a complaint against Sri Mrityunjoy Singh and elder brother said Sri Dhananjoy Singh for their prosecution before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bankshall Court, Calcutta, under appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code along with the copies of all relevant documents and the said learned Magistrate on filing of such complain shall take all steps against the said persons in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.