Back
2026 Supreme(Ori) 463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY, J.
Susanta Kumar Samal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and Anr. - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. No.2652, 2655, 2660, 2664 of 2026
Decided On : 24-03-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.Jena, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. U.R.Jena, AGA Mr. P.Behera, Advocate for Transport Authorities
The suspension of vehicle registration certificates under Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act is unlawful if the vehicles have valid permits at the time of seizure, regardless of allegations of illegal activity.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 53(1)(b) and 57 - Suspension of registration certificates of vehicles - The authority's action in suspending registrations was deemed unauthorized due to valid permits at the time of seizure. The court highlighted that mere transportation of illegal resources does not automatically imply a violation under Section 53. (Paras 6-10)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - The court is entitled to hear the petitions despite the availability of an appeal, considering the livelihood implications for the petitioners. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, owners of various vehicles, challenged the suspension of their registration certificates for alleged illegal sand transportation. The suspension was based on Section 53 of the M.V. Act, but valid permits were held at the seizure time.
Findings of Court:
The suspension orders were quashed as the authority lacked jurisdiction under Section 53, since no violation of clauses (a) or (b) could be established against the vehicles.
Issues: Whether the suspension of registration certificates was justified given the vehicles had valid permits at the time and whether the court could entertain the writ petitions despite the appeal option.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that without a clear violation under the specified conditions of Section 53, the authority could not suspend registration certificates. Moreover, it found it appropriate to entertain the writ petitions to avoid undue hardship to petitioners.
Result: Writ petitions allowed; the suspension orders quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners own vehicles; registration suspended. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners' vehicles accused of illegal activity. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. validity of permits during seizure. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. suspension of registration deemed unauthorized. (Para 9) |
| 5. writ petitions allowed; suspension orders quashed. (Para 10 , 11) |
Judgment :
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. P.Behera, learned counsel for Transport Authorities and Mr. U.R.Jena, learned AGA for State-Opposite Parties.
2. All the Petitioners are the owners of different vehicles, i.e. Hyva bearing respective registration numbers. The common case of the Petitioners is that the registration certificate of those vehicles have been suspended till 31st March 2026 in exercise in the power under Section 53 (1)(b) of Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Mar-2026 11:40:13 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998.
3. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that the allegations levelled against the vehicles are that they all were transporting illegal sand from Kilipal Sairat Source in the District of Jagatsinghpur. As such, Tirtol P.S. Case No.0605 has been registered alleging commission of offences under Section 51(1) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, Section 12 of the Odisha Minerals (Prevention of Theft Smuggling and Other Unlawful Activities) Act, 1988, Section 303 (2)/ 317(2)/ 112/ 326(b)/ 3(5) of BNS and Section 31(A)/ 33(A) of the AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. In total 46 numbers of Hyva vehicles and three excavators were seized by a joint team of Police, Mining and Transport authorities. Mr. Jena, further submits that the suspension of registration certificate in terms of Section 53 of the M.V.Act is not attracted in the present case since all the vehicles are having valid permit on the date of their seizure, i.e. on 27th November 2025.
4. The Transport Authorities have filed their counter in Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Mar-2026 11:40:13 all the cases taking the common stand that all such vehicles were seized on 27th November 2025 and their registration certificates have been suspended in exercise of the power under Section 53 (1)(b) of the M.V.Act.
5. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for Transport Authorities submits that as the FIR has been lodged alleging commission of such offences against the vehicles, the suspension of their registration certificate cannot be considered as violative of the powers conferred on the Registering Authority in that respect. He further submits that the unauthorized use of the vehicles in transporting illegal sand empowers the authority to proceed for suspension of their certificate by exercising the power under Section 53 of the M.V.Act read with the Rules. He further submits that the order under passed by the Registering Authority is appealable as per Section 57 of the M.V.Act.
6. Keeping the nature of dispute as common in all the writ petitions, it appears that all the vehicles were having their valid permit on the date of their seizure, i.e. on 27th November Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Mar-2026 11:40:13 2025. There cannot be any dispute to such facts. As per the counter affidavit filed by Regional Transport Officer, since the vehicles were in indulged in carrying goods in contravention of the provision of Section 53 (1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, their registration certificates have been suspended after considering the representation submitted in respect of each owner. It is seen from the averments made in the counter affidavit that the direction for suspension of registration certificate of the vehicles has been exercised as per the power conferred on the authority under of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is important here to reproduce the of the M.V.Act, which reads as follows:-
53. Suspension of registration- (1) If any registering authority or other prescribed authority has reason
