Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8245 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar,Ramesh Kumar Shukla,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. Heard Sri R.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. The writ petition has been filed prayed for following reliefs:- (I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondent nos.2, Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate, Prayagraj to take legal action against the respondent nos. 4 to 6, Station House Officer, Police Station George Town, Commisionerate Prayagraj, S.I. Aswani Savita, Police Station George Town, Commissionerate Prayagraj, Cosntable Tanveer, Police Station George Town, Commissionerate Prayagraj and punish them in accordance with law. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus summoning the respondent nos. 5 and 6 with entire record of the vehicle no UP70EM2881, which has been seized by the said respondent nos. 5 and 6 on 12/13.04.2025. (III) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for impugned seizure notice dated 13.04.2025 issued by the respondent no. 3 Station House Officer, Police Station George Town, District Prayagraj (Annexure No.3 to this writ petition. (IV) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deep fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. (V) Award costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner with costs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument has submitted that he will not press the reliefs made in the writ petition, in case the seizure notice dated 12/13.04.2025 of the motorcycle of the petitioner is quashed and the aforesaid vehicle is directed to be released by the respondent no.4 forthwith in favour of the petitioner. He has submitted that as per Section 207(2) of Motor Vehicle Act, only proviso, instead of seizing the vehicle, seizure of certificate of registration of the vehicle could have been done but the vehicle was taken to the police station where seizure was done despite offer made by the petitioner to seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle. 4. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition clear averments has been made in this regard. In paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated by the Sub-Inspector of the police station concerned that the vehicle was being driven by the petitioner in uncontrolled manner and therefore, it was seized online because the petitioner could not produce the driving license. 5. After consider the rival pleadings, this Court finds that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have not complied the provisions of Section 207(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, only proviso, which provides that instead of seizing for vehicle, seizure of certificate of registration of vehicle can be made. There is no denial in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not in possession of certificate of registration of the vehicle. The only averment is that he could not produce the driving license. 6. Therefore, the impugned seizure notice dated 12/13.04.2025 is hereby quashed. The respondent no.3, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Colonelganj, Prayagraj is directed to ensure that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 shall release the vehicle of the petitioner on production of certified copy of this order before them. The writ petition is allowed to the extent stated above. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Abhishek Sri. (Avnish Saxena,J.) (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad