Neeraj Kumar Sharma vs State of Karnataka - Writ Petition

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [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) -2- NC: 2026:KHC:16461 WP No. 36250 of 2025 HC-KAR

  THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER [ARTICLES 226](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/) AND [227](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331149/) 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.

1. 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.

-3-

NC: 2026:KHC:16461 WP No. 36250 of 2025 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](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1667388/), 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 -4- NC: 2026:KHC:16461 WP No. 36250 of 2025 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.

1. Counsel for the respective parties presented several

contentions.

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following

decision.

-5-

NC: 2026:KHC:16461 WP No. 36250 of 2025 HC-KAR

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

2025 SC 549.

1. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

with care.

1. 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.

1. 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 -6- NC: 2026:KHC:16461 WP No. 36250 of 2025 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. -7-

NC: 2026:KHC:16461 WP No. 36250 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. 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 -8- NC: 2026:KHC:16461 WP No. 36250 of 2025 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.

1. 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.

-9-

NC: 2026:KHC:16461 WP No. 36250 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. The powers relating to seizure or detention of motor

vehicles are governed by the provisions of the [Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/785258/), 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 WP No. 36250 of 2025 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 WP No. 36250 of 2025 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 WP No. 36250 of 2025 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.

1. 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 WP No. 36250 of 2025 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.

1. 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 WP No. 36250 of 2025 HC-KAR

same is presently in their custody. Compliance with this order

shall be effected without any delay.

1. 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.

1. 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