The conditions for valid seizure under Section 16 (3) of the Act and Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules/Niyam read with Section 100 (4), Cr. P. C. are mandatory and must be strictly complied with.

( 1 ) WITH this petition, six other matters are heard analogously involving the common question of law of some importance. By this common Order, all seven Matters, of which brief particulars are itemised below, are disposed of. M. P. No. Petitioner/owner vehicle No. Seizure Date407/92 m. Aorra mp 07 1943 27-2-1992 (JOINTLY)r. K. Arora mpg 7171-do-431/92 m. S. Jadon mkw 7744-do-446/92 m. Arora cig 7605 28-2-1992449/92 r. P. Sharma m P 06 7527-do-461/92 r. N. Sikarwar mkh 7730 7-3-1992462/92 ashok Parashar cpg 57 27-2-1992 563/92 s. S. Tomar mp-06-A-1411 9-3-1992 (Jointly)a. K. Shrivastava mp-06-A-1601-do-subhash Pathak mp-06-6838-do-

( 2 ) THE common feature of all these cases is that the vehicles were seized by the Flying squad of the Transport Department operating on different dates in Gwalior region in different areas. Except in one (the instant petition), in all other matters, State of M. P. , through Secretary, Transport Department, is impleaded as the first respondent. During the course of hearing of these petitions, the Transport Commissioner, Shri Shivraj Singh, along with Regional Transport Officer, personally attended hearing and assisted Shri Kelkar, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State and other respondent in these matters.

( 3 ) ALTHOUGH in all matters, returns have come and on facts, contentions of the petitioners, in all cases, variously raised, are disputed, we do not propose to dilate thereon. Indeed, in all these matters, a preliminary objection is forcefully pressed not only by Shri Kelkar but also by Shri Nigudkar, learned counsel appearing for M. P. Road Transport Corporation (intervener) that there being available to the petitioners the statutory remedy of appeal the petitions are not maintainable. With that, we would deal appropriately in due course, but at this stage, we would simply state that in all the petitions, the common question of law agitated is that the seizure made of the vehicles of the petitioners was without jurisdiction and not illegal only. It is contended that for plying the vehicles without permit, those were seized, but no tax could be levied or collected in such a case in terms of the provisions of M. P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991, for short, the 'act' / 'adhiniyam'. It is not disputed that all petitioners are bus-owners and in all cases, the common allegation against the petitioners is that passengers were found carried in the vehicles seized during surprise check on the highway by the Flying Squad when it was found that for the concerned route, none had a valid permit on the date of seizure. In that regard, in respect of the cases of the different petitioners, details are furnished in the separate returns about non-fulfilment in different manner by the different petitioners of the legal requirement of the holding of a proper and/or valid permit. Indeed, it is the common ground of the respondents in all these cases that for nonpayment of tax due payable under the required permit contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short, the 'm. V. Act' the vehicles were validly and legally seized in terms of Section 16 (3) of the Act.

( 4 ) TO the other provisions of the Act, we would refer soon, but presently, it is necessary to state that Section 20 (b) of the Act provides for an appeal by any person aggrieved by the seizure of motor vehicle made under Section 16, but it also provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless the amount of tax and penalty levied in respect of which the appeal is preferred has been paid. Complaints are made in specific terms in some petitions about the tax demanded and release of vehicles being made conditional on payment of amounts specified. In M. P. No. 563 of 1992, at para 1, it is stated that from each of the petitioners Rs. 30,000/- was demanded as the tax amount and indeed, that demand is challenged by them as illegal and without jurisdiction. In M. P. No. 407 of 1992, at para 2, on the other h