JUDGMENT By the Court.—This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.3.2012 passed by the District Magistrate /District Election Officer (in short, the DM/DEO), Varanasi, in NCR No. 33 of 2012 dated 5.2.2012 under Sections 171-Cha IPC and Section 133 of the People's Representative Act, and under Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act, PS Cantt., District Varanasi. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 15.2.2012 during elections in Varanasi, the police inspector of the Cantt. Police station of Varanasi seized the vehicle (Tata Magic), bearing No. UP 65 AT 6714, of the petitioner on the ground that it was being plied against the directions of the Election Commission, and an NCR No. 33/12 was registered. The petitioner moved an application before the CJM for release of the vehicle, who by his order dated 28.2.2012 released the same. 3. Meanwhile, the DM/DEO, Varanasi, issued a show-cause notice for seizure of the impugned vehicle for disobedience of the Election Commission’s direction No. 437/6/1996-PLN-III dated 16.1.1996. The petitioner filed a reply to this notice, stating that he was not plying the vehicle for the election purpose and was not carrying any voters on that date. Actually, his babhi, Smt. Suman Jaiswal, had a fracture in her leg and he was carrying her to take to the hospital. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the DM/DEO by his impugned order dated 16.3.12 confiscated the vehicle in favour of the Government. 4. Learned cousnel for the petitioner submitted that as per the direction of the Election Commission, on the date of the election any person can ply his vehicle for the use of sick and disabled persons and the impugned vehicle was being plied by him for taking his bhabhi to the hospital for treatment of her factured leg. Through an affidavit he has filed a prscription of the District Hospital, varanasi, in support of his contention. 5. Learned AGA opposed the contention and submitted that as per the DIG report and the police report, it is quite clear that the petitioner was plying his vehicle on the election day for the purpose of carrying BJP voters. It was also submitted that the prescription of Suman Jaiswal was the last prescription of the day, which seemed a fabricated one. 6. Considered the submissions of the parties. It was also submitted that the prescription of Suman Jaiswal was the last prescription of the day, which seemed a fabricated one. 6. Considered the submissions of the parties. In this respect, the instructions/order issued by the Election Commission, dated 15.7.1996 is important. Paragraph 8 of this instruction/order may be quoted hereunder: “8. There is no intention on the part of the Commission to put a complete ban on all vehicular traffic on the polling day and thereby create difficulties or cause harassment to the public. For genuine bona fide use for purposes other than election, the following types of vehicles shall also be allowed to be plied on the day of poll and there will be no exception: (a) Private vehicles being used by the owners for their private use, not connected with elections; (b) Private vehicles being used by owners either for themselves or for members of their own family for going to the polling booth to exercise their franchise, but not going anywhere within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station; (c) Vehicles used for essential services namely hospital vans, ambulance, milk vans, water tankers, electricity emergency duty vans, police on duty, officers on election duty; (d) Public transport carriages like buses plying between fixed termini and on fixed routes; (e) Taxis, three wheeler scooters, rickshaws etc. for going to airports, railway stations, inter-state bus stands, hospitals for journeys which cannot be avoided; (f) Private vehicles used by sick or disabled persons for their own use. “ It is clear from the above notification that the Election Commissions imposed several restrictions for the fair and impartial election proceedings and restricted movement of vehicles during election day. But, it has also carved out certain restrictions, and paragraph 8, afore-quoted, contains some of them. Paragraph 8(f) clearly stipulates that ‘private vehicles used by sick or disabled persons for their own use’ can be plied on an election day. 7. The petitioner’s case is that he was plying his vehicle for the purpose of taking his bhabhi, who had a fractured leg, to the hospital and he has filed a prescription of the date in question through an affidavit in support of his submission. He has also filed a medical certificate through a supplementary rejoinder-affidavit, which certifies that Smt. Suman Jaiswal, bhabhi of the petitioner, was under the treatment of the doctor issuing the certificate. He has also filed a medical certificate through a supplementary rejoinder-affidavit, which certifies that Smt. Suman Jaiswal, bhabhi of the petitioner, was under the treatment of the doctor issuing the certificate. This document suppports the petitioner’s case. Against it, there is only a DIG report, on the basis of the statement of the concerned inspector of police who had seized the vehicle and the DM/DEO, relying on this report of the DIG, discarded the explanation of the petitioner, which is not on the basis of any strong evidence. The report of the DIG does not mention as to how many persons were being carried in the vehicle, and their particulars, at the time when the vehicle was seized. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order 16.3.2012 of the District Magistrate/District Election Officer, Varanasi, deserves to be set aside, and the same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. ——————