Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners, inter alia, have prayed for release of the vehicle belonging to Petitioner No. 1, which has been allegedly seized in colourable exercise of power without any legal basis by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, for compensation @ Rs. 1,000/- per day from the date of seizure of the vehicle, compensation for causing mental agony to Petitioner No. 2 by implicating him in a false and malicious prosecution and for quashing the entire proceedings including the orders dated 5th September, 2005 and 9 th September, 2005 in M-II Case No. 147 of 2005.

2. According to the petitioners, Petitioner No. 1 has been operating a Trekker, being Registration No. JH-01-E-9057. The petitioner No. l possessed the said vehicle by virtue of the agreement for sale dated 31 st May, 2004 and power of attorney dated 2 nd April, 2004 executed by the registered owner-Bimal Kumar. The said vehicle operates on Dhurwa-Ranchi route on hire basis.

3. On 12 th August, 2005, the driver of the vehicle informed Petitioner No. 2 on telephone that the vehicle was seized by the Officer-in-charge (Traffic), namely, Jitendra Kumar, at Jail Chowk due to refusal of payment of illegal gratification.

4. Petitioner No. 2 went to the police station along with original documents and requested Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to release the vehicle. The said respondents demanded a sum of Rs. 800/- for releasing the vehicle. Petitioner No. 2 did not comply with the said illegal condition. He was then allegedly threatened with dire consequences, including implication in criminal case and causing damage to the vehicle.

5. The petitioner No. 2, thereafter, tried to move the Executive Magistrate (Traffic Special)-Respondent No. 7, but on that day, he was not available.

6. The petitioner No. 2 had to go on a religious trip to Deoghar and as such, he could not take any further step then. After coming back from the trip, he could obtain the offence report and found that the report is against him and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner No. 2 is neither the driver nor the registered owner of the vehicle. He is a practicing advocate of this Court. No case at all is made out against him under the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. Since Petitioner No. 2 was made an accused, he filed an application on 5 th September, 2005 for release of the vehicle before the Executive Magistrate, (Traffic Special), Ranchi, Respondent No. 7.

8. The said respondent examined all the documents, including Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate, Insurance Certificate, Tax Token Permit, Driving License of the driver, which were produced in original and the same were found in order.

9. The registered owner of the vehicle, Binod Kumar, who had entered into an agreement with Petitioner No. 1, also filed his affidavit to support the petition for release of the vehicle. But in spite of the same, no order was passed.

10. The petitioners alleged that the said apathy of Respondent No. 7 was at the behest of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who wanted illegal gratification from the petitioners, which is their usual practice at Radium Road Chowk and Jail Chowk. The said conduct of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was also highlighted and criticized by public and media.

11. It has been stated that though the respondents seized the vehicle with all accessories, they did not prepare the seizure list in accordance with law. According to the petitioners, the detention ot the vehicle is absolutely illegal and Petitioner No. 2 has been implicated maliciously, which has caused loss of his prestige in society and mental agony and as such, the petitioners are entitled for the appropriate relief.

12. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 denying the allegations made by the petitioners. It has been, inter alia, stated that the vehicle, being Registration No. JH-01-E-9057, was found parked in a No Parking Zone near Radium Road Chowk on 12 th Augus