New Delhi

The Delhi High Court has rejected a man's plea seeking over Rs 1 crore as compensation from the city administration for the alleged unjust seizure and scrapping of his end-of-life motorcycle.

A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the vehicle owner's appeal challenging a single judge's decision not to grant him the relief.

The transport authorities seized the 18-year-old motorcycle from a public road in December 2024 on the ground that it qualified as an end-of-life vehicle (ELV) and subsequently scrapped it.

The appellant contended that the vehicle, which was parked outside his residence, was not contributing to any pollution as it was unused for the past four years.

He claimed that the motorcycle was scrapped without any due notice, in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution.

Article 300A states that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law.

The appellant sought Rs 1.43 crore as compensation from the authorities for "mental agony, prolonged effort and harassment due to the unjust seizure, detention and scrapping" of the vehicle that had sentimental value for him.

He prayed for damages for the destruction of his allegedly high-value, well-maintained and antique personal possession, as well as defamation.

The authorities, on the other hand, asserted that the vehicle was scrapped in accordance with the Registration and Functions of Vehicle Scrapping Facility (RVSF) Rules, 2021, as the owner failed to file the requisite undertaking within three weeks.

In the judgment passed on August 24, the division bench refused to interfere with the single judge's decision, which had asked him to approach a civil court with a suit instead.

The court observed that the seizure and scrapping of ELVs is governed by the RVSF Rules and its guidelines, which stipulate that ELVs found plying or parked in a public place would be impounded and handed over to a registered vehicle scrapping facility.

It said there was also a mechanism for seeking the release of such vehicles if an application is submitted within three weeks of the seizure.

However, in the present case, there was no material to demonstrate that the appellant availed of the mechanism for the release of his vehicle, the court noted.

The court observed that the case concerned disputed questions of fact, and that the appellant's alleged entitlement to compensation would have to be established by leading evidence.

"For grant of compensation as claimed by the appellant, it would be necessary to determine whether the Respondent acted in conformity with the statutory framework governing the seizure, release and scrapping of ELVs. It would also be required to determine whether the vehicle was lawfully seized and, thereafter, scrapped on account of the Appellant's failure to furnish the requisite undertaking," the court said.

READ MORE: Operation Safed Sagar made me re-evaluate myself as an artist: Adil Hussain

"Such an exercise cannot appropriately be undertaken in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed," it concluded.