The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the power of Enforcement Officers under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the procedure for release of vehicles and goods, emphasizing the liability of officers for damages and compensation.

Out of the 8 cases being disposed of by this order the first 7 were heard together and the last case was heard later on. However, since the grievance was identical the order of that case was also reserved, for it being disposed of along with the rest of the 7 cases.

2. In all these cases, the grievance of the petitioners is against the seizure and detention of their commercial vehicles loaded with goods for being transported to their destinations. In all the cases seizures was made by the Enforcement Officer-cum-Motor Vehicle Inspector of the district on the allegation of violation of different provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Seizure memos were handed over to the driver or in-charge of the vehicle and the vehicles were detained. This power appears to have been exercised by the Enforcement Officers in terms of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In all the cases, the bona fide of the Enforcement Officer has been questioned and it is stated that all the documents, required to be produced, were produced before the Enforcement Officers when the vehicles were intercepted. However, they kept the papers with themselves with malafide design and seized the vehicles and detained them giving seizure memos in which it was falsely mentioned that the offences had been committed under different sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. In CWJC No.19458, i.e., the first case a counter affidavit has also been filed in which it has been stated that the Enforcement Officer has already filed a prosecution report before the concerned Magistrate. In CWJC No.17646 of 2012 also a counter affidavit has been filed and it has been stated that, in terms of the interim orders of this Court, vehicle has been released.

3. Learned Addl.A.G.No.-10 appeared in all the cases for respondents and he took a very fare stand in the matter. He submitted that in exercise of his powers under Section 207 of the said Act, an Enforcement Officer has the authority to intercept a moving vehicle, inspect the same, demand papers and if he has reasons to believe that the vehicle was being used in contravention of the different provisions of the Act and Rules, he can seize the same and detain, it pending submission of the prosecution report before the concerned Magistrate for cognizance of the offence. However, he fairly admitted that in normal practice this power is often being misused by the concerned officers for extraneous considerations and with malafide design. Hence, he submitted that he was not opposed to the prayer of the petitioners for release of the vehicles, which may be ordered subject to any proceeding before any competent court, but this Court should pass orders with such necessary directions so that such misuse of power by the concerned officers may be reduced to the minimal. In this connection, he referred to a judgment of a Bench of this Court (N.P.Singh, J.) in the case of R.G.Holdings Private Limited Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr.[2008 (2) PLJR 538] and submitted that this Court has already noticed that, in view of the frequent complaints being received in respect of the conduct of Enforcement Officers, the Government had already issued a circular, namely, Circular No.2801 dated 28.08.2000, directing any authority, who had seized the vehicle, that if the party did not appear within 24 hours of the seizure of the vehicle and requested for compounding, the case must be reported to the competent criminal court for initiation of prosecution and the vehicle must be handed over for judicial custody by the court. He accepted that still the Enforcement Officers are not complying with these directions. In the circumstances, cases were reserved by this Court for orders.

4. From the perusal of the said judgment of this Court, referred to by learned Addl. A.G. No.-10, it appears that, in somewhat similar circumstances, this Court considered various issues and has taken pains to go into the scheme of the law and powers, duties and obligations of the parties.