[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Neeraj Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
WP No. 36250 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 36250 OF 2025 (MV)
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
(BY SRI. H. PAVAN CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,
Digitally signed by
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
PREMCHANDRA
MR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 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. V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AAG FOR R1 TO R4)
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
HC-KAR
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
HC-KAR
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
HC-KAR
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, through the Commissioner
for Transport and Road Safety, observed that several vehicle
owners were engaging in fraudulent practices to evade
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
HC-KAR
payment of applicable taxes. In response, an official
memorandum was issued by the Additional Commissioner for
Transport (Enforcement - South) on June 12, 2025. Pursuant
to this memorandum, a Special Checking Squad was
constituted under the supervision of the Regional Transport
Officer of Mysore West and Mysore East. The objective of this
squad is to check and inspect high-end luxury vehicles that
have not paid the required taxes but are being operated on
roads within the jurisdiction of Mysore.
The officers mentioned in the official memorandum
became aware that the vehicle bearing registration number KA-
20MH-0888 was parked outside the residence of Mr Nitin
Shetty, located at Vijayanagar First Stage, Mysuru. Upon
conducting a detailed inspection, the officers observed that the
engine number and chassis number of the said motor vehicle
corresponded with those of the original vehicle purchased by Mr
Nihal Ahmed. Consequently, the vehicle was detained and
seized by the officers through the issuance of Form No. 27
under Rule 27A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules.
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
HC-KAR
7. It is contended that, after the issuance of Annexure
A, notices were issued to the original owner, Mr Nihal Ahmed,
on July 3, 2025, and to Mr Nitin Shetty on June 23, 2025, near
whose residence the vehicle was found. The Government has
specifically argued that the petitioner did not approach the
respondent authority to claim the release of the vehicle and
instead directly approached this Hon'ble Court through the
present writ petition, seeking to quash the investigation report
and cheque report, along with a prayer for the vehicle's
release.
The Government specifically alleged that the petitioner
has fabricated or altered the relevant documents by changing
the vehicle description from Mercedes-Benz BENZ-GL-63-AMG
to GLA 200 GDI. The Government contends that, in the
Temporary Certificate of Registration, the maker's classification
of the vehicle is shown as Mercedes-Benz BENZ-GL-63-AMG.
However, in the Sale Certificate, the vehicle has been certified
as GLA 200 GDI. It is further contended that the value of the
Mercedes-Benz BENZ-GL-63-AMG is approximately
Rs.1,96,95,000, whereas the value of the GLA 200 GDI is only
about Rs.35,00,000. The petitioner has fabricated all
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
HC-KAR
documents pertaining to the vehicle, and has thereby
defrauded the Government to the extent of Rs.78,31,161. The
confiscation of the vehicle has not yielded any revenue to the
Government, and the persons to whom notices were issued
have neither responded nor come forward to contest the
proceedings. On this basis, the authorities justify the seizure of
the vehicle.
The petitioner contends that he purchased the vehicle in
accordance with due process of law. However, the seizure of
the vehicle is allegedly based on mala fide accusations of
submission of false documents. The petitioner further submits
that the respondents acted beyond their jurisdiction by
bypassing the statutory procedure prescribed for seizure of the
vehicle and the consequent cancellation of its registration.
8. Against the backdrop of these conflicting
submissions, the core issue before me is the legality of the
vehicle seizure, by an officer who was not competent or
authorised to exercise such power under the applicable law and
the cancellation of the vehicle's registration during the
pendency of the writ petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
HC-KAR
9. The powers relating to seizure or detention of motor
vehicles are governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, which regulates the control, use, and enforcement of
motor vehicle laws throughout India.
Under the statutory framework and the practice followed
in the State of Karnataka, the competent officers authorised to
seize or detain a motor vehicle are primarily:
a. Officers of the Motor Vehicles Department, not below the
rank of Inspector of Motor Vehicles;
b. Officer of the Police Department, not below the rank of an
Inspector of Police.
These restrictions exist to ensure that coercive powers
affecting the property of citizens are exercised only by officers
vested with statutory authority and responsibility.
The Regional Transport Officer (RTO) or an authorized
Motor Vehicles Inspector is empowered to seize and detain a
motor vehicle in Karnataka only under specific statutory
provisions. Such authority is derived from Section 11A of the
Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (in cases of non-
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
HC-KAR
payment of tax), and Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (in cases of operation without valid documents, such as a
permit, registration, or fitness certificate).
As contended by the government, a Special Checking
Squad was constituted under the supervision of the Regional
Transport Officers of Mysore West. It is to be noted that Mr
Ranjit, an officer posted at the Bangalore (South) office, was
merely assigned the responsibility of submitting a report under
the supervision of the Regional Transport Officer, Mysore
(West). However, he acted beyond the scope of his authority
as though he himself were the Regional Transport Officer of
Mysore (West), and had seized the vehicle before submitting
the report.
The State seeks to rely on Annexure R-11 to contend that
Mr Ranjit had the source of power to seize the vehicle. This
contention is untenable. A plain reading of Annexure R-11
reveals that it is only an official memorandum assigning Mr
Ranjit a limited duty--namely, to submit a report under the
supervision of the competent Regional Transport Officer,
Mysore (West). It is to be noted that at the time of issuance of
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
HC-KAR
the official memorandum, Mr Ranjit was an officer working at
the Bangalore South office, and he was only a part of a special
squad team. It does not confer upon him the statutory powers
of an RTO, nor does it authorize him to exercise independent
coercive powers such as seizure and detention of vehicles. The
scope of such an assignment was limited to investigation and
reporting. However, contrary to the limited mandate entrusted
to him, the officer proceeded to seize the vehicle. Such action
clearly exceeded the scope of his authority and amounts to an
exercise of power without jurisdiction. In the absence of proper
authorization under the relevant statutory provisions, the
action taken by Mr. Ranjit is without jurisdiction and therefore
unsustainable in law.
It is a settled principle of law that when a statute confers
a specific power upon a designated class of officers, the same
cannot be exercised by any other person who is not expressly
authorised. Any action taken in violation of such statutory
limitation is liable to be treated as illegal and unsustainable in
law. This Court holds that the seizure of the motor vehicle by
the concerned officer was without lawful authority. Therefore, it
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
HC-KAR
is declared illegal. Appropriate consequential relief regarding
the vehicle shall follow in accordance with the law.
Having addressed the issue concerning the seizure of the
vehicle, I now turn to consider the separate issue of
cancellation of the vehicle's registration during the pendency of
the writ petition.
10. It is shocking to note that, despite the pendency of
the writ petition before this Court, the respondent authorities
have chosen to cancel the vehicle's registration. Such action,
prima facie, appears to be arbitrary and is liable to be
deprecated. I may venture to say that the act on the part of the
Government, in proceeding to cancel the registration during the
pendency of the writ petition, deserves to be condemned. This
Court finds such conduct on the part of the respondent
authorities to be highly improper. Once this Court seizes of the
matter and is pending adjudication, any precipitative action
taken by the authorities affecting the subject matter of the writ
petition is wholly unwarranted. This Court is constrained to
observe that the cancellation of the vehicle registration during
the pendency of the Writ Petition is legally untenable and
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
HC-KAR
cannot be sustained, as the subject matter is sub judice. The
action taken by the Government appears to be a flagrant
disregard for Court proceedings, taking the law into its own
hands, and consequently, the order deserves to be set aside.
Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned
Investigation Report and the order of cancellation of the
Registration Certificate cannot be sustained in the eye of the
law and are liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the impugned Investigation Report
vide Annexure-A stands quashed. Consequently, the order
dated 16.01.2026 cancelling the Registration Certificate of the
petitioner's vehicle is also quashed.
In view of the aforesaid, the respondent-Regional
Transport Officer (RTO) is hereby directed to restore the
registration of the vehicle forthwith.
The respondent authorities are further directed to release
and hand over the vehicle to the petitioner forthwith, as the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16461
HC-KAR
same is presently in their custody. Compliance with this order
shall be effected without any delay.
12. Before parting with the matter, this Court deems it
appropriate to observe that officials of the RTO Department are
not merely enforcers of statutory provisions but are
representatives of the State in their dealings with citizens. Their
conduct has a direct bearing on public confidence in
governance. They are, therefore, expected to act with fairness,
transparency, empathy, and a high sense of public duty.
13. The Writ Petition stands allowed in the above
terms. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
MRP
LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 1
