1. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :- The petitioner is a stage carriage operator plying several stage carriages in the city of Mangalore and also in the District of Dakshina Kannada and beyond. The grievance of the petitioner is against the attitude of the police officers of Dakshina Kannada and especially the S.I. of Police, Traffic (West) Mangalore who is respondent 1 in this petition. According to the petitioner, the respondent 1 is in the habit of seizing stage carriage vehicles of the petitioner even though there is no violation of the provisions of S.129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The grievance appears to be more in the nature of a complaint against harassment and abuse of power than in the nature of ordinary grievance of irregularity in the exercise of power by public officials.

2. The petitioner has produced two police notices which disclose the nature of offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner's driver and also showing that the vehicle was seized and the petitioner was directed to appear before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate as denoted in the said notices - vide Annexures-A and B besides Annexures-C, D and E.

3. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus or prohibition as considered appropriate in the 'circumstances' of the case against both respondents 1 and 2 interdicting seizure of the stage carriages belonging to the petitioner as detailed under Annexure-C unless the offences imputed fall within the ambit of S.129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

4. I directed the learned Government Pleader Sri Ramesh to take notice for respondents 1 and 2 and a copy of the writ petition was also served upon him.

5. Though the case came up for preliminary hearing today, by consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, after hearing their arguments, this writ petition is disposed of by this order.

6. The learned Government Pleader brought to my notice an unreported judgment of this Court passed in W.P. 12418/1987 dated 26-8-1987 : (reported in (1987) 11 Reports 325). The only difference between the case aforesaid and the instant case is that in the case referred to, the motor vehicle in question had not been released and a case was pending disposal before the jurisdictional Magistrate whereas in the instant case after seizure the vehicle was released by the Authorities. In the said decision the question of law that arose for consideration in relation to facts which are more or less similar to the facts of this case, was - whether the Authority was justified in seizing the vehicle on failure to produce documents such as the permit, registration certificate, tax certificate etc. It is only in Annexure A which is the notice served on the petitioner by the Authority that it is alleged against the petitioner that there was non-production of the permit when it was demanded during the operation of vehicle. The other annexures produced in the writ petition do not disclose the imputation of non-production of the permit. Para 9 of the order of this Court in W.P. 12418/1987 which is the relevant portion is reproduced below for the sake of convenience :
"Hence it is not possible to hold that the respondent exceeded his authority in effecting the seizure of the vehicle. However, it is brought to the notice of the Court that all those documents were produced. But it is not the case of the petitioner that at the time of seizure of the vehicle, all the aforesaid documents were produced. Production of necessary documents subsequent to the seizure will not invalidate the seizure. In addition to this, the respondent in his affidavit has stated that the aforesaid documents were not produced before the case was filed. However, for future guidance it is necessary to indicate that a police officer or any other officer authorised in this behalf, before taking any future step after seizing the vehicle will do well and in doing so he will be acting well within his powers, if