Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 12952

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

NC: 2026:KHC:16461

WP No. 36250 of 2025

BETWEEN:
NEERAJ KUMAR SHARMA
S/O. SIDHNATH SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT: D-909, BRIGADE PINNACLE APARTMENTS,
BEJAI KAVOOR ROAD, DEREBAIL,
KONCHADY MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
PIN-575 006.
… PETITIONER
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT,
4TH FLOOR, V.V. TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU URBAN, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
MYSORE WEST, MYSORE DISTRICT,
PIN-570 021.
4. SENIOR INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLE,
RTO OFFICE, MYSORE WEST,
MYSORE DISTRICT, PIN-570 021.
… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. H. PAVAN CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
(BY SRI. V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AAG FOR R1 TO R4)

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H. Pavan Chandra Shetty
For the Respondents: V.G.Bhanuprakash

Actions involving the seizure of property or cancellation of rights by statutory authorities must be executed strictly within the scope of their delegated jurisdiction; actions taken by unauthorized officers or administrative interventions during the pendency of judicial proceedings are illegal and void.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 207 - Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 - Section 11A - Seizure of motor vehicle - Competency of officer - Seizure conducted by an officer not vested with statutory authority is illegal and unsustainable. (Paras 8 and 9)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Pendency of proceedings - Cancellation of registration during pendency of writ petition - Precipitative action by state authorities while the matter is sub judice is improper and legally untenable. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased a luxury vehicle after it was auctioned by a bank following a settlement. The vehicle was subsequently seized by respondents, and its registration was cancelled, alleging fabrication of documents and tax evasion. The petitioner challenged this action, contending it was done without jurisdiction and based on mala fide accusations.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the officer who seized the vehicle acted beyond the scope of his assigned duties and lacked the statutory authority required for such coercive action. Furthermore, the court held that the cancellation of the registration while the writ petition was pending was a flagrant disregard for court proceedings.

Issues: (i) The legality of the vehicle seizure, particularly regarding the authority of the officer involved. (ii) The validity of the cancellation of the vehicle’s registration during the pendency of the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers a specific power upon a designated class of officers, the same cannot be exercised by any other person not expressly authorized. Any action taken in violation of such limitation is illegal, and any precipitative administrative action taken while the subject matter is sub judice is impermissible.

Result: Writ Petition allowed. Impugned investigation report and cancellation order quashed; restoration of registration and release of vehicle ordered.

WRIT PETITION NO. 36250 OF 2025 (MV)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS AT DHARWAD BENCH ON 05.03.2026, LISTED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER AT DHARWAD BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CAV ORDER

Sri.H.Pavana Chandra Shetty, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.G.Bhanuprakash, AAG, have appeared through video conferencing.

2. The petition averments are as follows.

Mr. Nihal Ahmed, residing at Door No. 4-3-298/57, Flat No. 504, 5th Floor, Silver Line, Kodlialguttu, Kodialbail, Mangaluru, Karnataka, purchased a Mercedes-AMG G 63 from TV Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Pvt. Ltd., Sundaram Motors, No. 107, Kasturba Road, Bengaluru, for a total price of Rs.1,96,95,000, and availed a loan facility from HDFC Bank Ltd. for the purchase.

On 21.03.2023, the erstwhile owner, Mr Nihal Ahmed, sold the said vehicle to third parties without the knowledge of HDFC Bank. During investigation, the Delhi Crime Branch, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi seized the vehicle and registered FIR No. 0073 against Amar Motors, represented by its owner Harmanpreet Singh Walia, Shop No. 32, J Block, DDA Market, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 482, and 120B of the IPC, 1860.

Aggrieved by the illegal seizure of the vehicle, HDFC Bank Ltd. approached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. After examining the materials collected by the Delhi Police in FIR No. 73/23, the Court passed an order in favor of HDFC Bank Ltd. Subsequently, on 01.08.2024, the erstwhile owner, Mr Nihal Ahmed, wrote to HDFC Bank seeking authorization for an amicable settlement. Thereafter, on 10.09.2024 and 14.09.2024, the petitioner, being interested in purchasing the vehicle from HDFC Bank Ltd., paid Rs.62,50,000 through ICICI Bank. Following the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in FIR No. 73/23, HDFC Bank Ltd. took possession of the vehicle on 17.09.2024 and placed it for auction, and the vehicle loan was settled through a One Time Settlement of Rs.62,50,000.

After payment of Rs.62,50,000, HDFC Bank Ltd. issued a No Objection Certificate. Based on a letter issued by the Additional Commissioner for Road Traffic (Administration), Bengaluru, bearing No. CT/RGN-1-PR-928-2024-25, the vehicle was registered in Karnataka as No. KA-20-MH-0888 on 18.01.2025, relying on the temporary registration issued by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Mangaluru, on 10.01.2025. Subsequently, on 15.06.2025, while the vehicle was parked outside the residence of Mr.Nitin Shetty in Mysuru, the 3rd and 4th respondents confiscated it, alleging that the vehicle falls under the category of Mercedes-Benz G63 as per Inspection Report No. CR.No.214476. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition on the grounds set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

3. Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions.

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decision.

BISHWAJIT DEY V/S. STATE OF ASSAM reported in AIR 2025 SC 549.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

5. The case presents two issues for consideration: (i) the seizure of the vehicle, and (ii) the cancellation of its registration during the pendency of the writ petition.

6. This is a fascinating case of a Mercedes-Benz that completed an extensive round trip from Karnataka to Himachal Pradesh and back. Considering the facts presented regarding the petitioner’s car purchase, I shall now turn to the subsequent developments, specifically the registration of the vehicle by the RTO, Udupi, in the year 2025, and the ensuing seizure and cancellation of the registration thereof.

The government has justified the seizure of the vehicle on the basis of the following narration.

The Government of Karnataka

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 12952

Cases Referred (1)