Law enforcement officers must follow statutory procedures for seizing driving licenses, including issuing acknowledgments and ensuring the right to a fair trial is upheld.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.

1. The present writ petition has been instituted by Subhrangsu Panda, a practicing advocate of this Hon’ble Court, seeking extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petition primarily challenges the actions of the traffic authorities, specifically Respondent No. 10, Traffic Sergeant Palash Halder, in relation to the seizure of the petitioner's driving licence.

Petitioner’s Case:

3. The factual matrix, as presented by the petitioner in the writ petition, centers around an incident that occurred on March 26, 2024, at the intersection of Khidirpur Road and A.J.C. Bose Road. The petitioner's vehicle, bearing registration number WB 12BP-7205, was intercepted by the private respondent no. 10 while he was traveling from his native place at Kakdwip, District South 24 Parganas, to his residence at Baksara, Howrah

4. An allegation of over-speeding was made against the petitioner, with his vehicle reportedly recorded at 77 km/h, exceeding the stipulated speed limit of 60 km/h. The petitioner has categorically denied the allegation, contending that the matter ought to have been processed through the designated online portal, thereby affording him his fundamental right to a fair trial before a competent court of law.

5. Crucially, the petitioner alleges that the Respondent No. 10, Palash Halder, while discharging his official duties, demanded a cash payment of Rs. 1,000 as a fine. Upon the petitioner's refusal to pay in cash and his insistence on making the payment through the prescribed online mode, Respondent No. 10 is stated to have seized the petitioner's driving licence without assigning any cogent reason.

6. The petitioner disclosed his identity to Respondent No. 10 and informed him that he is a practicing advocate of this Hon'ble Court. He also displayed the sticker issued by the Bar Association, High Court at Calcutta in his favour, affixed to his vehicle. Despite this, Respondent No. 10 neither returned the petitioner's driving licence nor did issue a temporary authorisation slip, as contemplated under Section 206 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ’the 1988 Act’).

7. The petitioner repeatedly informed Respondent No. 10 that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 206 (2) of the 1988 Act, the police authorities are not empowered to seize a driving licence unless there exists a specific reason to apprehend that the alleged offender may abscond or avoid service of summons. He further apprised Respondent No. 10 that this position has been affirmed in several decisions of this Hon'ble Court, which have consistently held that, in the absence of a recorded and specific reason by the police officer, seizure of a driving licence is not legally permissible.

8. In response, Respondent No. 10 asserted that he had full authority to seize the driving licence. He further claimed that he was well-versed in the law, was aware of the functioning of this Hon'ble Court, and had previously discharged duties under a former Hon'ble Judge of this Court. On that basis, he remarked that the petitioner need not trouble himself with explaining the law to him.

9. Subsequently, the petitioner received an SMS on his mobile phone bearing SIM card number 9903826338, sent through the Kolkata Traffic Police Portal, informing him that he had been prosecuted under Sections 112 /183(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. An online challan bearing compound number AK-2