Police officers or persons authorized by the State Government have the power to seize and detain vehicles found plying in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but they must follow the procedure laid down in the Act for the release of vehicles and the filing of complaints before Magistrates.

V.N. Khare, J.

When these petitions were filed, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondents. In pursuance of those orders Respondents have filed a counter affidavit in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30122 of 1994. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that since the stand taken by the Respondents is identical in all the writ petitions the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 30122 of 1994 may be read in all the petitions In which counter affidavits had been called for. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that these petitions may be disposed of at the admission, stage. Accordingly, we propose to decide all these petitions finally.

2. These petitions can be split into three sets of writ petitions. The first set consists of writ petitions No. 30109 of 1994, 30122 of 1994, 30135 of 1994, 30149 of 1994, 30151 of 1994, 30317 of 1994, 30670 of 1994, 31034 of 1994, 31131 of 1994, 31123 of 1994, 31024 of 1994, 31125 of 1994, and 31129, of 1994 and 30933 of 1994 the second set of writ petitions are 30111 of 1994, 31318 of 1994 and the third set of writ petition are 30016 of 1994 A 30676 of 1994.

3. The Petitioners in all these writ petitions are carrying on transport business. For that purpose they hold temporary/permanent contracts or stage carriage permits and are operating on different routes within the State of Uttar Pradesh It appears that while the Petitioners were plying their vehicles the Respondents seized their vehicles either on the ground that vehicles were being plied in contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of Section 39 or without the permits required by Sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the Act (Motor Vehicles Act 1988) or in contravention of condition of the permits relating to the routes. It it that stage the Petitioners approached this Court by means of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed 'or issue of directions either to the Respondents or to the appropriate Court for releasing their vehicles so seized. In the first set of writ petitions the prayer is that the person authorised by the State Government may be directed to release/their vehicles. In the second set of writ petitions the prayer is that the Circular dated 18th August 1994 may be quashed and further the matter may be referred to the respective Courts for trial of the offences in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure while in the third group, it is alleged that the Petitioners moved applications before the respective Chief Judicial Magistrate for release of their vehicles u/s 451 Code of Criminal Procedure but that their applications were turned down on the ground that Courts were not competent to deal with the matter.

4. Sri L.P. Naithani, learned Counsel for the Petitioners urged that police officers or persons authorised by the State Government have no power to release the vehicle so seized and as it is incumbent upon the police officers or the persons so authorised to refer the complaints to the competent court of law for trial of offence. In substance the argument is that executive authorities have no jurisdiction to try the offences alleged to be committed by the Petitioners, On the other hand, the stand of Respondents is that It is only the police officers or persons so authorised who are competent to try the offence.

5. Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides that any police officer or person so 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 40 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 vehi