1. Petitioner is the owner of a public, carrier truck No. HR 55/1330 and while it was carrying for the work undertaken by the Company, cable wiring, machines and other articles and equipments to Bahadurganj in district-Kishanganj being the worksite of the petitioner-Company, the truck was seized by District Transport Officer (DTO), Purnea, respondent No. 2 who is respondent No. 3, in person at Zero Mile, Gulab Bagh in the district of Purnea on 4.4.2007. The writ petition was filed on 25.7.2007 as by then the said respondent had merely held back the truck seized and was not releasing the same. Thus, the writ application was ostensibly filed for release from illegal seizure and compensation for long, illegal detention of the truck. In course of the proceedings on 8.11.2007, a counter affidavit was filed by respondent No. 2, the DTO, Purnea and on prima facie satisfaction of this Court that the authority had acted willfully mala fide, he (DTO, Purnea) was directed to be added as party by name and notices were issued to him to show cause why pecuniary damages be not ordered for recovery from him for mala fide exercise of authority and in the meantime, he was directed to release the truck to the petitioner without demand of any fine or otherwise. The latter part was because in his counter affidavit, he disclosed that on 17.8.2007 he had suo motu imposed a fine/penalty of Rs. 16,900.00 on payment whereof the vehicle could be released. This order, the petitioner alleges, was not disclosed. Ultimately the vehicle was released on 19.12.2007 that is more than after eight months of detention.

2. One of the main questions that arise for determination in this writ application is as to the jurisdiction and authority of different classes of authorities of the State to effect seizure of motor vehicles and impose penalty and matters related thereto.

3. The petitioner is the registered owner of public carrier truck No. HR 55/ 1330. It had undertaken certain works with regard to laying of cables for telecom sector and, as such, while the truck in question was carrying the petitioners goods that is cable wiring, machines and other articles and equipments to the petitioners worksite at Bahadurganj in Kishanganj district on 4.4.2007, it was intercepted by respondent No. 2 at Zero Mile, Gulab Bagh in the district of Purnea. A seizure list was prepared by respondent No. 2 being respondent No. 3 in person, purporting to be u/s. 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 allegedly for not carrying any paper. Seizure list is Annexure-I to the writ petition and is Annexure-VIII to the counter affidavit and Annexure-A/G to the show cause of respondent No. 3.

4. Petitioner alleges that all papers were produced whereas respondent alleges that no papers were produced as is written on the seizure list. A reference to the seizure list, as appended by the respondent himself, shows that driving licence, certificate of fitness, registration book were produced and have been noticed in the seizure list itself but in the counter affidavit, it is stated that "original required documents" were not produced. They were later, after sometime, produced. What were the required documents is not stated nor is it stated in the counter affidavit as to how much later they were produced and how if they were not produced at the time of seizure how they were found mentioned in the seizure list itself. To this Court, it is apparent that documents were produced but in order to justify seizure or create a cause to seize, these statements were made in the counter affidavit which is contrary to the seizure list. Seizure list clearly refers to the original owner of the vehicle and its transfer to the petitioner which could only be on basis of certificate of registration. It shows the particular of driving licence, a certificate of fitness and respondents themselves have annexed permits issued by the Haryana Transport Authority.

5. The only ground for justifying the seizure and detentio