JUDGMENT

I. M. QUDDUSI, J. : These are nine writ petitions filed against the seizure of the vehicles of the petitioners under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as “the Act”) by the Regional Transport Officers raising the grievance that their vehicles bearing registration numbers mentioned against the number of each of the writ peti¬tions noted below have been seized and detained for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.

W.P.(C) No. Vehicle No.

1. 262 of 2007 OR-02-Y-0604

2. 263 of 2007 OR-19-B-1699

3. 264 of 2007 OR-05-E-4591

4. 265 of 2007 OR-05-E-8777

5. 266 of 2007 OR-05-T-2099

6. 267 of 2007 OR-O5-E-0291

7. 291 of 2007 OR-02-C-2588

8. 292 of 2007 OR-25-9667

9. 293 of 2007 OR-02-L-5567

2. Some of the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the Regional Transport Officers have not proceeded further after seizure of the vehicles but some of the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the Regional Transport Officers have offered for compounding of the offences, but the petitioners did not agree with the same and thereafter no further action was taken by them.

3. Mr. P. Panda, learned counsel for the Transport Depart¬ment has submitted that after seizure of the vehicles or docu¬ments, as the case may be, under Section 207(1) of the Act if the RTOs offer compounding of the offences in accordance with law and the owners of the vehicles do not agree to the same, it is within the jurisdiction of the RTOs to cancel the permits and the regis¬tration of the vehicles under Sections 55 and 86 of the Act.

4. Section 207(1) of the Act authorizes a police officer or any other person authorized by the State Government to seize and detain a vehicle or document connected to the vehicles. In the instant writ petitions, the Regional Transport Officers who are duly authorized by the State Government have seized the vehicles. Therefore, it cannot be said that the seizure and detention of the vehicles by them are without jurisdiction. However, the power of seizure and detention under Sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Act is limited to the contravention of the provisions of Section 3, i.e., valid driving licence, Section 4, i.e., driving a motor vehicle beyond the age limit of the person fixed by the Government, Section 39, i.e., without having any registration and Sub-section (1) of Section 66, i.e., without permit or in contra¬vention of any condition of the permit. Section 200 of the Act permits the composition of offences committed under Sections 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 183 184, 186, 189, Sub-section (2) of Sections 190, 191, 192, 194, 196 or Section 198 of the Act.

5. The grounds on the basis of which the registration of a motor vehicle or a permit granted to it, could be cancelled have been given under Sections 55 and 86 of the Act, according to which if a vehicle has been destroyed or has been rendered perma¬nently incapable of use or removed permanently out of India or the registration has been obtained on the basis of fake documents or the engine number or chassis number embossed on the vehicle are different from the numbers entered in the certificate of regis¬tration, the registration can be cancelled under Section 55 of the Act. Therefore, the registration of a motor vehicle cannot be cancelled in any other situation. In the similar manner if the grounds mentioned in the Section 86 exist only then the permit granted to a motor vehicle can be cancelled or suspended. Some of them are breach of conditions mentioned in Section 84 of the Act, i.e., absence of valid certificate of fitness or unauthorised use of vehicles etc. Therefore, the authority having jurisdiction to cancel the registration or a permit, cannot act on any ground other than the grounds mentioned in Sections 55 and 86 of the Act.

6. Therefore, proceedings regarding cancellation of regis¬trati