Seizure of a vehicle for tax recovery under the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 is invalid without prior tax assessment and notice. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, authorities may seize the Registration Certificate instead of the vehicle to avoid unnecessary prolonged custody of the property.

ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

7.1 Allow this writ petition and declare the entire seizure proceedings of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration number MP35ZE-7510 as void ab-initio and null & void and to quash impugned seizure memo dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P/2);

7.2 Allow this writ petition and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to release the petitioner’s vehicle (Bus) bearing registration number MP35ZE-7510.

7.3 It is further prayed to grant exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- for illegal seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle.

7.4 Any other appropriate orders against respondents be issued in favour of the petitioner with cost of the petition.

On 18/02/2026, learned State counsel was granted time to seek instructions in the matter with respect to passing of any assessment order in terms of Section 16(3) of M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 .

Learned State counsel, on instructions, has placed on record the order dated 23/02/2026 issued by Additional Regional Transport Officer, Katni, pointing out the fact that no assessment was carried out prior to passing the impugned order.

It is the specific case of the petitioner that the seizure of petitioner's vehicle was made exercising the powers under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act and under Section 16(3) of M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 . Once there is no assessment carried out by the Authorities, the said provisions could not be implemented by the Authorities. He has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nikhata Afros and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1997 MP 41. It is further submitted that under the provisions of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is not the mandatory requirement for seizing the vehicle, instead the Authorities can seize the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. The offence is compoundable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he admits that there is violation of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore the Authorities are required to compound the offence and the petitioner is ready to pay the penalty. They may seize the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nikhata Afros (supra), but the vehicle could not have been seized by the Authorities. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 : AIR 2003 SC 638 and prayed for release of the vehicle.

Learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order pointing out the fact that the order has been passed as there were tax dues against the petitioner. The vehicle was running in violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act as well as the Adhiniyam, 1991.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The seizure memo shows that there were tax dues against the petitioner. However, learned State counsel could not point out that the procedure as contemplated under the Adhiniyam, 1991 was followed by the Authorities or not. There is no assessment of tax carried out by the Authorities.

Rule 15 of the Rules of 1991 clearly provides that if any owner fails to pay tax due, penalty or interest payable under the Act or the Rules, the Taxation Authority to whom such an amount is payable, shall serve on the owner a notice in Form E-2. Sub-rule (3) provides that if within 7 days of the service of notice, the sum of the amount contained in the notice is not paid and no reasonable cause for its non-payment is shown, then the Taxation Authority may proceed to recover the amount as an arrear of land revenue. Taxation Authority may take further action under Section 16(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1991 for realization of the sum payable. But bef