Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the Seizure Memo dated 21.3.2006 (Annex. 1) by which in exercise of power under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act), the vehicle has been seized by the Transport Authority, for the reason that colour of the vehicle is as of the vehicle belonging to U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called U.P.S.R.T.C.).

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner is registered owner of Vehicle No. UP-70- AT- 2463 (bus) which is being plied by the petitioner on the basis of temporary permits granted in his favour by the Transport Authorities from time to time.

On 21st March, 2006, the vehicle was seized by the respondent No. 1 as the vehicle was having the colour as that prescribed for U.P.S.R.T.C. buses. The petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle on 17.4.2006. However, the same is not being considered. Hence this petition.

3. Shri Anant Ram Dube, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that seizure of the vehicle itself is illegal as it has not violated any condition of permit; neither the vehicle was used for the purpose other than it could be used, nor the vehicle was operated outside the route or area for which permit had been granted. Having the colour synonymous to the vehicle of the U.P.S.R.T.C. cannot be violative of conditions of Permit. Therefore, the seizure is illegal, thus, liable to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that this Court should not exercise its powers or release the vehicle and the Transport Authority itself should be directed to consider the application and pas an appropriate order for release.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Provisions of Section 207 of the Act reads as under:

“207. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration/ permit, etc.—(1) Any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle :

Provided that where any such officer or person has reason to be believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgement in respect thereof.

(2) Where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order, release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose.”

6. The powers to seize a vehicle have been given only where the Authority has reason to believe that the vehicle is being driven without registration, without a Permit, driven by a person having no Driving Licence or he is a minor or the vehicle is being plied on unauthorised route. However, the application for release must be considered by the Authority after being satisfied that the vehicle complies with the requirement of the Statute.

7. The Hon’ble A