A. K. MATHUR, C. J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioners have prayed that the annexures B, C, D and E may be quashed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act and carrying on the passenger transport business on the strength of stage carriage permits granted by the Transport Authorities. The officers of the respondent-corporation as are enumerated in An- nexures B and C respectively, have been authorised by the State Government to exercise the powers under Sections 129 and 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The officers of the Corporation or the Police Officer on deputation with the corporation cannot be authorised to exercise the police powers nor cannot be authorised to check and seize buses of the petitioners plying under the valid stage carriage permits. It is alleged that the petitioner's bus was checked by the Corporation and under the threat of seizure of vehicle, a penalty of Rs. 1,750/-- was levied by the Corporation. Therefore, the petitioners have challenged both the notifications (Annexures B and C) as also recovery receipt (Annexure A) on the ground that the Corporation being trade rival cannot be judged in there own cause and the power conferred under Sections 129 and 129-A of the M. V. Act on the corporation or the police officers on deputation with the corporation, is illegal and arbitrary. A similar question came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Singh Bagaa and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (1) SCC 101 , and that was a case from Rajasthan challenging the issue of notification by the State Government under Sections 129-A and 133-A of the act and the same has been found to be bad. The Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court hold that the powers of search seizure and detention of vehicles belonging to private parties and of launching prosecutions are incidental to the sovereign powers of the state and they cannot ordinarily be entrusted to a private person unless the statute concerned makes express provision in that regard. The Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court hold that the powers of search seizure and detention of vehicles belonging to private parties and of launching prosecutions are incidental to the sovereign powers of the state and they cannot ordinarily be entrusted to a private person unless the statute concerned makes express provision in that regard. It may be relevant to mention that the employees of the corporation is not the holder of the civil post and this power to the employee of the corporation could not have been authorised by the State Government, therefore, this notification was found to be bad and struck down. Similar view has also been taken earlier by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Krishna Bus Service P. Ltd. v. State ofharyana, air 1985 SC1651, and in that, the appointment of General Manager, Haryana Road Ways, a department of State, as an officer, exercised the powers of the Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Act, was found to be violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, on the basis of the reasoning given in both the aforesaid decisions, both the notifications (Annexures 6 and C) cannot stand and that same have to be quashed and consequently, recovery of receipt in a sum of Rs. 1,750/-, vide Annexure E, is quashed and the respondents are directed to refund the said money to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 12%. 3. In the result, the petition is allowed. The notifications (Annexures B and C) and recovery (Annexure E) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the money to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 12%. The amount of security if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners. Petition allowed. .