The High Court of Kerala has affirmed that the unlawful seizure of a vehicle by transport authorities constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to property under Article 300A, even in the absence of a criminal charge. The judgment underscores that procedural compliance and evidentiary basis are non-negotiable prerequisites for enforcement actions, setting a clear boundary against arbitrary state action.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Chacko Thomas, is the lawful owner of a passenger vehicle registered as KL-69-E-1670. On 20 October 2025, the vehicle was seized by the Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement) and the Nedumkandam Police Station on the grounds of alleged violation of permit conditions. The petitioner contested the seizure, asserting that the vehicle was duly registered, permitted, and all taxes had been paid. Documentary evidence, including the registration certificate, permit, and tax receipts, was submitted to establish lawful possession.
Procedural History
- 20 October 2025: Vehicle seized under a seizure mahazar without production of any statutory notice or opportunity to be heard.
- 19 December 2025: Petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) No. 39515/2025 before the Kerala High Court seeking release of the vehicle and prohibition of future unlawful seizures.
- 19 December 2025: Court issued an interim order directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nedumkandam to decide on the release of the vehicle within one week.
- 24 December 2025: Vehicle was released by the Magistrate’s order, prior to final hearing of the writ petition.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (i) immediate release of the vehicle; (ii) prohibition against future unlawful seizures; and (iii) refund or adjustment of taxes paid during the period of illegal detention. Although the vehicle was released, the petitioner sought judicial recognition of the illegality and a declaration of rights to pursue compensation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the seizure of a vehicle, without a valid statutory basis, opportunity of hearing, or proof of violation, violates the constitutional right to property under Article 300A and amounts to arbitrary state action under Article 14.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on State of Maharashtra v. Balaji and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to argue that the seizure was procedurally flawed and substantively unjustified. They emphasized that the vehicle was duly registered, permitted, and taxed, as evidenced by Exhibits P1 - P4. The absence of any notice under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or a recorded reason for seizure rendered the action illegal. The counsel contended that the seizure was punitive in nature, not preventive, and thus required judicial sanction.
For the Respondent
The State did not file a detailed counter-affidavit. The Advocate General’s representative conceded that no formal order or statutory notice was issued prior to seizure. The respondents relied on the seizure mahazar (Annexure R10(a)) as sufficient ground, but failed to demonstrate any breach of permit conditions or violation of rules under the Motor Vehicles Act. No evidence was produced to show that the vehicle was being used for unauthorized purposes.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional and statutory framework governing vehicle seizures. It held that Article 300A protects property rights from arbitrary deprivation by the State, and that such deprivation must be authorized by law and follow fair procedure. The Court noted that while Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act permits seizure for specific violations, it mandates prior notice and an opportunity to be heard unless the vehicle is being used for an offence punishable with imprisonment.
"The mere assertion of a violation, without supporting evidence or statutory compliance, cannot justify the deprivation of a citizen’s property. The State cannot act as judge in its own cause."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving commercial vehicles engaged in illegal transport, noting that the petitioner’s vehicle was a private passenger vehicle with valid documentation. The Court further observed that the seizure mahazar lacked specificity, did not cite the rule violated, and was not signed by an independent witness. The absence of procedural safeguards rendered the action ultra vires.
The Court also rejected the notion that release of the vehicle mooted the petition. It held that the petitioner’s right to seek compensation and declaratory relief remained intact, as the illegality of the act persisted even after the vehicle’s return.
The Verdict
The petitioner prevailed. The Court held that the seizure of the vehicle was illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 300A and Article 14. While the vehicle was already released, the Court affirmed the petitioner’s right to pursue compensation and refund of taxes paid during the period of unlawful detention.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Seizure Requires Statutory Basis and Notice
- Practitioners must now insist on production of the specific rule violated and proof of notice under Section 207 MV Act before any seizure.
- Seizure mahazars lacking signatures, dates, or statutory references are prima facie invalid.
- Authorities cannot rely on generic allegations; each seizure must be tied to a concrete, documented breach.
Compensation for Illegal Detention Is Enforceable
- Tax payments made during illegal detention are recoverable as unjust enrichment.
- Petitioners may now file separate claims for damages under Article 226 or civil suits, with this judgment as binding precedent.
- Courts will not treat vehicle release as automatic extinguishment of liability for illegal seizure.
Documentary Evidence Prevails Over Oral Assertions
- Registration certificates, tax receipts, and permits (Exhibits P1 - P4) constitute conclusive proof of lawful possession.
- Authorities must rebut such documents with credible, contemporaneous evidence - not post-hoc justifications.
- Courts will not accept vague claims of "permit violation" without cross-referencing the permit conditions and actual usage.
