Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jaikishore Parasar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20666
1 WP-18269-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 13 th OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 18269 of 2026
JAIKISHORE PARASAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Neerendra Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Man Singh Jadon - Advocate and Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for
the respondent [R-3].
Shri Sohit Mishra - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being
preferred by the petitioner assailing the impugned challan/order dated 02.05.2026
issued by Respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner’s vehicle bearing Registration
No. MP-07-P-0646, Model Year 2011, was illegally seized and detained on the
allegation of violations under Sections 177, 130, 180, 190(2), 192A and 66 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is the
registered owner of a passenger vehicle bearing Registration No. MP-07-P-0646,
Model Year 2011, duly registered on 03.08.2011 by the competent registering
authority at Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. The said vehicle was operating under a
valid temporary permit issued under Section 87(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 for carrying party passengers on the route from Gwalior to Gorakhpur via
Jhansi. Prior to commencement of the journey, the petitioner had duly deposited
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/14/2026
10:27:35 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20666
2 WP-18269-2026
the requisite tax payable to the State of Uttar Pradesh on 02.05.2026 at 12:20 PM
for operation of the vehicle on the said route.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle in
question, having a seating capacity of 36 seats (Deluxe), was in possession of all
valid and effective documents including Certificate of Registration, Fitness
Certificate, Insurance Policy, Pollution Under Control Certificate and Retro
Reflective Tape Certificate. The Fitness Certificate of the vehicle was valid up to
25.09.2026. The driver of the vehicle, namely Deepak, was also holding a valid
and effective driving licence authorizing him to drive the said class of vehicle.
It is further submitted that on 02.05.2026, while the vehicle was proceeding
from Gwalior to Gorakhpur via Jhansi carrying party passengers in accordance
with the temporary permit, officials of the Regional Transport Office, Jhansi
intercepted and checked the vehicle at about 14:05 hours within the jurisdiction of
Jhansi and proceeded to issue a challan alleging violations under Sections 177,
130, 180, 190(2), 192A and 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thereafter,
Respondent No. 3 illegally and arbitrarily seized and detained the vehicle.
The petitioner submits that at the time of checking, the driver had produced
all valid and relevant documents pertaining to the vehicle before Respondent No.
3, including the registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate, insurance policy
and driving licence. Despite production of all documents and there being no
violation of any statutory provision, Respondent No. 3 forcibly and illegally took
the vehicle into custody and detained it by issuing the impugned challan in
complete disregard of the provisions of law.
It is submitted that the impugned allegation regarding overloading of 70
passengers is false, baseless and unsupported by any material on record. No list of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/14/2026
10:27:35 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20666
3 WP-18269-2026
passengers was prepared, no counting exercise was undertaken in accordance with
law and no contemporaneous document was prepared to substantiate the allegation
of overloading. Consequently, the allegation of carrying excess passengers is
arbitrary and liable to be rejected.
It is further submitted that no offence under Section 130 of the Motor
Vehicles Act is made out inasmuch as the driver had duly produced all documents
demanded by the authorities during inspection. Similarly, no offence under
Sections 66 or 192A of the Act can be attributed to the petitioner as the vehicle
was operating under a valid temporary permit issued by the competent authority
and was being plied strictly in accordance with the conditions thereof. Likewise,
in view of the existence of a valid and effective fitness certificate, no violation
under Section 190(2) of the Act is attracted. The allegation under Section 180 of
the Act is equally unsustainable as the driver was holding a valid and effective
driving licence at the relevant time.
The petitioner further submits that Respondent No. 3 is also illegally
demanding an amount of Rs.58,420/- towards alleged expenses incurred for
making arrangements for transportation of passengers from Jhansi to Gorakhpur,
despite there being no statutory authority or legal basis for such demand.
It is submitted that the vehicle was duly registered by the competent
registering authority at Gwalior under Sections 40 and 41 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 read with Rule 41 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994
and the registration certificate remains valid and operative throughout the territory
of India. The vehicle was also covered by a valid permit and valid fitness
certificate issued by the competent authority at Gwalior. The petitioner’s residence
as well as principal place of business is situated at Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh and,
therefore, this Hon’ble Court possesses territorial jurisdiction to entertain and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/14/2026
10:27:35 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20666
4 WP-18269-2026
adjudicate the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences alleged under
Sections 177, 130, 180, 190(2), 192A and 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are
wholly inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of
the existence of valid registration, permit, fitness certificate, insurance policy and
driving licence. It is further submitted that even otherwise Respondent No. 3 had
no authority in law to seize and detain the vehicle in the circumstances of the
present case. Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the authorised
officer to seize and detain a vehicle only in circumstances where the vehicle is
being used in contravention of Sections 3, 4 or without a valid permit, or in
violation of permit conditions attracting the provisions of the said section. The
exercise of power by Respondent No. 3 in seizing the vehicle despite the existence
of a valid permit and all requisite documents is therefore wholly arbitrary, illegal
and without jurisdiction.
It is submitted that the fitness certificate issued under Section 56 of the
Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 62 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 was
valid for the period from 26.09.2025 to 25.09.2026. The temporary permit was
also valid for the period from 29.04.2026 to 05.05.2026. Further, the petitioner
had deposited the requisite Uttar Pradesh tax on 02.05.2026 before
commencement of the journey on the route from Gwalior to Gorakhpur via Jhansi.
In such circumstances, the impugned challan and consequential seizure of the
vehicle amount to an arbitrary and illegal exercise of statutory powers and are
unsustainable in law. The continued detention of the petitioner’s vehicle has
caused and continues to cause severe financial loss, hardship and inconvenience to
the petitioner on a daily basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the
attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/14/2026
10:27:35 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20666
5 WP-18269-2026
Court in the case of Mahendra Arora and Another v. Transport Commissioner,
M.P., Gwalior reported in 1993 AIR (MP) 29 , wherein the Court considered the
mandatory compliance of the relevant statutory provisions and rules governing
such actions. It is submitted that in light of the principles laid down in the
aforesaid judgment, the action of the respondent authorities stands vitiated on
account of non-compliance with the applicable provisions of the Act, Rules and
Regulations and is therefore liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the
seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 36 passengers, whereas at the time of
issuance of the challan, the petitioner was carrying 77 passengers, far in excess of
the permitted capacity. It is further submitted that the driver was not in possession
of valid and requisite documents, including the permit and driving licence. The
passengers were travelling from Jhansi to Gorakhpur, a distance of approximately
623 kilometres. In such circumstances, the concerned officer considered it
appropriate and necessary to seize the vehicle in the interest of the safety and
security of the passengers.
It is further contended that the petitioner has directly approached this Court
challenging the challan issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
despite the fact that the proceedings arising out of the challan are triable
summarily. In the event the petitioner disputes the allegations or offences
mentioned in the challan, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi, is the
competent authority to adjudicate upon the same. Therefore, if the petitioner
intends to contest the alleged offences, he has an efficacious and alternative
statutory remedy before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. Accordingly, it is
submitted that the petitioner has made an incorrect statement in paragraph 3 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/14/2026
10:27:35 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20666
6 WP-18269-2026
petition regarding the absence of an alternative remedy.
It is also submitted that, in accordance with the applicable Government
Guidelines, whenever a vehicle carrying passengers is seized, the concerned
officer is required to make necessary arrangements to ensure that the passengers
safely reach their intended destination. In compliance with the said guidelines, the
Passenger Tax Officer arranged for buses of the Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) to transport the stranded passengers from Jhansi
to Gorakhpur. Consequently, the Assistant Regional Manager, UPSRTC, raised a
fare demand in respect of two buses bearing registration numbers UP 78 JT 4889
and UP 78 JT 8806. The amount of Rs.58,420/- thus represents the transportation
charges incurred for carrying the passengers to their destination and does not
constitute any penalty or punitive levy.
It is further submitted that the petitioner himself has stated in the petition
that the vehicle was carrying party passengers. However, upon inspection, the
vehicle was found to be operating as a stage carriage and was carrying passengers
in excess of its permitted seating capacity. Instead of the authorised capacity of 36
passengers, the vehicle was carrying as many as 77 passengers, including children,
for a long-distance journey of approximately 623 kilometres. The respondent
further denies the petitioner’s assertion that the relevant documents were produced
before the checking authorities and submits that such statement is wholly
incorrect. At the time of inspection, the driver, namely Deepak, was not carrying
any of the requisite documents relating to the vehicle or his authority to drive the
same. In the circumstances, the respondent submits that the present petition is
devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the controversy involved in the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/14/2026
10:27:35 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20666
7 WP-18269-2026
petition essentially revolves around seriously disputed questions of fact. The
petitioner asserts that all relevant documents including the permit and driving
licence were produced before the checking authorities and that the vehicle was
carrying passengers strictly in accordance with the permit conditions. On the other
hand, the respondents categorically dispute the said assertions and maintain that
the driver failed to produce the requisite documents and that the vehicle was
carrying 77 passengers against the permitted capacity of 36 passengers.
Whether the vehicle was carrying excess passengers, whether it was being
operated as a stage carriage in violation of the permit conditions, whether the
requisite documents were produced before the checking authorities and whether
the alleged offences under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are made out
are all matters requiring appreciation of evidence and factual adjudication. Such
disputed factual issues cannot ordinarily be examined or adjudicated in
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when an
alternative statutory mechanism exists for adjudication of such disputes.
The submission of the petitioner that the existence of a valid permit, fitness
certificate and other documents by itself renders the impugned action illegal
cannot be accepted at this stage in view of the categorical stand taken by the
respondents disputing both the production of documents and the manner in which
the vehicle was being operated. The question as to whether the petitioner was
acting within the scope of the temporary permit or was violating the conditions
thereof is a matter which can only be determined upon appreciation of evidence
by the competent authority or court having jurisdiction in the matter.
This Court further finds substance in the objection raised by the respondents
regarding the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy. The challan issued
against the petitioner gives rise to proceedings which are triable by the competent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/14/2026
10:27:35 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20666
8 WP-18269-2026
criminal court. In the event the petitioner disputes the allegations contained in the
challan or seeks to establish that no offence under the Motor Vehicles Act has
been committed, it is always open to him to raise all factual and legal objections
before the competent court dealing with the challan proceedings. The writ
jurisdiction of this Court is discretionary in nature and ordinarily ought not to be
exercised where disputed questions of fact arise and an effective statutory remedy
is available to the aggrieved party.
So far as the challenge to the seizure and detention of the vehicle is
concerned, this Court is unable to hold, on the basis of the material presently
available, that the action of the respondent authorities was wholly without
jurisdiction or ex facie arbitrary. The respondents have justified the seizure by
alleging serious violations including overloading of passengers and violation of
permit conditions, coupled with concerns relating to passenger safety during a
long-distance journey. Whether such allegations are ultimately established or not
is a matter to be determined in appropriate proceedings and cannot be conclusively
adjudicated in the present writ petition.
The reliance placed by the petitioner upon the judgment rendered in
Mahendra Arora and Another Vs. Transport Commissioner, M.P., Gwalior (supra)
does not advance the petitioner’s case in the facts of the present matter inasmuch
as the applicability of the principles laid down therein would necessarily depend
upon the factual foundation being established, which remains seriously disputed
between the parties.
Similarly, the challenge to the demand of Rs.58,420/- towards
transportation expenses incurred for shifting the passengers by buses of the Uttar
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation also involves factual aspects requiring
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/14/2026
10:27:35 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:20666
9 WP-18269-2026
examination of the relevant guidelines, records and circumstances under which
such arrangements were made and expenses incurred. Such issues cannot
appropriately be examined in the present writ proceedings.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the present petition raises disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication on
evidence and that the petitioner has an efficacious and adequate alternative remedy
available under the statute before the competent forum. No case for interference in
exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is made out.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, observed
that dismissal of the present petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing
such statutory remedies as may be available in law for challenging the allegations
contained in the challan or for seeking release of the vehicle before the competent
authority or court, and any such proceedings shall be considered independently
and in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made
herein, which have been recorded only for the purpose of adjudication of the
present writ petition.
The petition stands dismissed accordingly.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/14/2026
10:27:35 AM
