ORDER :

1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-

“10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be graciously pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the illegal seizure memo dated 04.06.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by Respondent No.3.

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.C.G.-10-AY/6705.

2. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner together with the cost of this writ petition.”

3. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that petitioner is owner of a bus bearing No. C.G.-10AY-6705, which was seized by respondent No.3 vide vehicle seizure memo dated 04.06.2022 under the provisions of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short ‘the Act of 1988’) and Section 16 (3) of the C.G. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (In short ‘the Act of 1991’).

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner who is owner of Bus through his employee tried to apply for online special permit and to pay the tax but due to some technical glitch process could not be completed. Because of special pre-booking and prefixed programe of the passenger, they pressurised the driver to immediately start the vehicle to destination and under pressure driver started plying the vehicle in anticipation that permit will be issued shortly.

5. Petitioner had applied for permit for his Bus bearing No.C.G.- 10AY-6705 from 04.06.2022 to 07.06.2022. On the same date, the permit was issued vide Annexure P-2, however, on the same date i.e. 04.06.2022, vehicle of petitioner was seized by Assistant Transport Sub-Inspector. Petitioner deposited the required fees/tax for issuance of permit having valid registration certificate and after considering the application and other documents enclosed along with the application for grant of special permit, permit was granted. Respondent No.3/the employee/officer, who seized the vehicle on 04.06.2022 was not competent for seizing the vehicle under Section 16 (3) of the Act of 1991.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Section 16 of the Act of 1991 clearly prescribes the power of entry, seizure and detention of motor vehicles in case of non-payment of tax. He also submits that Section 16 of the Act of 1991 talks about Taxation Authority or any other officer authorised by the State Government. Rule 16 of the Motoryan Karadhan Rules, 1991 (In short ‘the Rules of 1991’) deals with the procedure regarding entry and search which provides that any officer of Transport Department not below the rank of Transport Sub-Inspector may exercise the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act. Further Rule 17 of the Rules of 1991 provides for procedure for seizure and detention of motor vehicle in case of non-payment of tax. It is next contended that in the seizure memo, it is written in hand that 66/192-A of Motor Vehicle Act. Section 66 of the Act of 1988 deals with permit and Section 192-A of the Act of 1988 talks of punishment to be imposed upon violation of Sub Section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit. Aforementioned provision do not provide for seizure of vehicle and therefore, according to the seizure memo, seizure is made by respondent No.3 under the provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1988 and Section 16 (3) of the Act of 1991. The authority who seized the vehicle was not competent and therefore, seizure of the vehicle vide Annexure P-3 be set-aside/quashed being without jurisdiction.

7. Learned State counsel opposing the submission of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the submission of learned counsel for petitioner with respect to competency of authorities seizing the vehicle is not correct. It is contended that the State Government vide notification dated 25.10.2021 has authorized the public servant mentioned therein in whi