Kirti Vasan v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. The present petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the directions as contained in the order dated 11th October, 2023, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 13373/2023.

2. It is to be noted that vide order dated 11th October, 2023, the following directions came to be passed:

3. Perusal of the aforesaid order shows that directions were issued to release the vehicle of the petitioner, upon making compliances, as contained in the aforesaid order.

4. However, it is the case of the respondent no. 2, i.e., Scrapping Agency, that even before the order dated 11th October, 2023 was passed by this Court, the vehicle of the petitioner had already been scrapped, on 03rd October, 2023.

5. The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2, reads as under:

6. Along with the aforesaid affidavit, respondent no. 2 has also filed a video clipping to show that the scrapping of the vehicle was undertaken by respondent no. 2, on 03rd

7. This Court takes note of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that vide letter dated 22nd November, 2024, the Transport Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (“Transport Department”) Scrapping Cell, had written to the petitioner herein, that directions had already been issued to the concerned Scrapping Agency for release of the vehicle.

8. The letter dated 22nd November, 2024, relied upon by the petitioner, is reproduced as under:

9. However, this Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the Transport Department that the aforesaid letter was issued, as the Transport Department was not aware, at that point of time, that the Scrapping Agency had already scrapped the vehicle of the petitioner.

10. It is to be noted that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 14th June, 2023, and the same was scrapped on 03rd

11. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition only on 10th October, 2023, and an order dated 11th October, 2023, was passed, wherein, the aforesaid directions were issued.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case before this Court, it is manifest that scrapping of the vehicle of the petitioner had taken place on 03rd October, 2023, much earlier than filing of the writ petition by the petitioner before this Court, and passing of the order dated 11th October, 2023, in favour of the petitioner.

13. Accordingly, no contempt can be said to have been committed by the respondents.

14. However, in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in scrapping the vehicle in question, the petitioner is at liberty to seek his remedies, in accordance with law.

15. This Court also takes note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 that the scrapping value of the vehicle has already been deposited with the Transport Department.