Judgment :- The petitioner-contract carriage operator has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Motor Vehicle Inspector (NT) (incoming) K.G. Chavadi Check Post, Coimbatore to release her contract carriage bearing registration No.KA-01/AC-1 wrongly noted in his check report as KA-01/AD 1 which was impounded by the respondent on 6-12-2003 and is being kept in his custody forthwith. 2. Though pursuant to the order of this Court dated 15-12-2003, the petitioner's contract carriage has been released, Mr. R. Natesan, learned counsel for the petitioner, insists that in view of high handed action on the part of the respondent in detaining, keeping the vehicle in the Check Post and inordinate delay in releasing the same, appropriate direction may be issued for payment of compensation. In the light of the said claim, it is useful to refer the required facts as stated in the affidavit. As said earlier, the petitioner is a contract carriage operator at Bangalore and operating among others a Volvo bus bearing registration No. KA 01/AC 1 which is covered by an All India permit issued by the State Transport Authority, Karnataka at Bangalore. Her husband K.P. Natarajan is also a contract carriage operation in Karnataka and is operating among others a Volvo bus bearing registration No. KA-01/AD 1 which is also covered by an All India permit issued by the State Transport Authority, Karnataka at Bangalore. It is further seen that both of them obtained orders for payment of tax to the State of Tamil Nadu for 7 days, 30 days or 90 days and their drivers paid the same on the first day entry into the State of Tamil Nadu. It is her claim that the permit issued to her is valid from 12-9-2003 to 11-9-2009 and the tax due to the State of Tamil Nadu is being paid voluntarily, the last such payment being on 24-11-2003 collected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sankagiri Unit Office, Salem District for the period from 29-11-2003 to 28-12-2003. While so, the petitioner's bus checked by the respondent on 6-12-2003 at about 11.30 P.M. at the State border check post, the respondent asked her driver to give the registration certificate, permit etc., and her driver produced the Xerox copies of the documents which alone are carried for safety reasons in the bus when it proceeds on a long trip. While so, the petitioner's bus checked by the respondent on 6-12-2003 at about 11.30 P.M. at the State border check post, the respondent asked her driver to give the registration certificate, permit etc., and her driver produced the Xerox copies of the documents which alone are carried for safety reasons in the bus when it proceeds on a long trip. The respondent thereupon asked the driver to get a pencil stencil of the vehicle's chassis number and her driver got the same. The respondent then pointed out that the chassis No. as found in the Registration certificate and the permit and the stencil got from the vehicle's chassis differed. It was then that her driver realised that he had brought the wrong registration certificate viz., the certificate belonging to the bus bearing registration No. KA-01/AD 0001 belonging to her husband. The check took place on Saturday and the drivers of the two buses had kept the R.C. books in pooja in a temple and at the end of the two bags containing the books looking identical had got mixed up. This was explained by her driver. However, the respondent has issued a check report stating that there is a discrepancy between the registration certificate chassis number and the actual chassis number found on the vehicle and therefore, he was impounding the vehicle which will be released only on the orders of the Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore South. 3. On coming to know of the check and the charge, she sent the correct registration certificate and submitted an application for release of the vehicle on 7-12-2003. The other bus was also produced before the respondent on 9-12-2003. It was found that the records are in order. It was pointed out that the vehicle referred to by the checking officer in his check report viz., KA-01/AD was in fact her husband's vehicle and was plying under his control and the bus kept by the respondent in his custody viz., KA-01/AC 1 is her bus with valid records and tax paid to the state of Tamil Nadu. The respondent is a non-technical officer and does not know to take the stencil marks on the chassis of the vehicles. The bus in question is a new Volvo make vehicle costing over Rs.50 lakhs with valid records and payment of tax to the State of Tamil Nadu. The respondent is a non-technical officer and does not know to take the stencil marks on the chassis of the vehicles. The bus in question is a new Volvo make vehicle costing over Rs.50 lakhs with valid records and payment of tax to the State of Tamil Nadu. The vehicle was standing in open space in front of the respondent's office on the road and is exposed to the weather without any daily maintenance. It is equipped with Television set and C.D player etc., which may be stolen as there is no security provided. 4. As said earlier, though the petitioner's vehicle was ordered to be released, and released in fact, pursuant to the direction, one K.Vilvamani, Motor Vehicle Inspector (N.T), K.G. Chavadi Coimbatore Incoming, has filed an affidavit explaining the steps taken by the officers. It is stated that during the course of check, on 6-12-2003 at about 11.30 P.M. the All India Tourist Omni Bus bearing Registration No. KA 01/AD 1 belonging to the petitioner herein operated from Trivandrum to Bangalore with 12 adult passengers, was stopped and checked in front of the check post and noticed the following irregularities:- "The chassis Number of the vehicle in question according to the Xerox copy of the Registration Certificates book of the vehicle produced by the driver at the time of check is YV 3R 6B 51238006361 * F6 whereas on physical verification from the vehicle, the chassis number was found as YV 3R 6B 51438006362. A pencil print of the chassis number has been taken from the vehicle and the copy of the same was also pasted in the check report issued to the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle in question had also put his signature in the check report and traced copy of the pencil print, to admit the irregularities and as such the vehicle was temporarily detained at the check post premises under safe custody. The Regional Transport Officer, coimbatore (South) in his letter dated 9-12-2003 called for remarks of the checking officer. On receipt of the communication, he came to the office on 10-12-2003 and submitted his explanation. The Regional Transport Officer, coimbatore (South) in his letter dated 9-12-2003 called for remarks of the checking officer. On receipt of the communication, he came to the office on 10-12-2003 and submitted his explanation. On verification of the connected records at the check post, it was seen that the registration number of the detained vehicle (KA 01/AD1) has been changed as KA 01/AC1 as recorded by the as recorded by the Motor vehicle Inspector (Non-technical) who was on duty on 8-12-2003 and the fact was also reported by him to the Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore (South) on the same day itself. Thiru T.G. Thomas, Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non-technical) who came to duty next to Thiru Chandrasekaran also reported the same again to the Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore (South). The Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore (South) by his letter dated 10-12-2003 took up the matter with the superintendent of Police, Coimbatore for launching prosecution against the registered owner of the vehicle under detention under Sections 206 and 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The registered owner of the vehicle under detention/petitioner in his letter dated 12-12-2003, which was produced at about 5.20 P.M. had requested the Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore (South) to release the vehicle by producing a receipt for Rs.100/- being the fine amount remitted in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore through Thiru Govindarajan, driver of the vehicle. Meanwhile, before taking efforts to release the vehicle, the Government Pleader, Coimbatore was addressed on 12-12-2003 for seeking clarification as there were some legal impediment in releasing the vehicle. Pursuant to the order of this court dated 15-12-2003, the vehicle was released immediately that is on 16-12-2003. 5. It is clear from the above details that the vehicle of the petitioner was checked and detained on 6-12-2003 and the same was released only on 16-12-2003 on the basis of the order of this Court dated 15-12-2003. Though this Court is not the appropriate Court to go into the claim made by the petitioner and the respondent officer, with reference to the production of documents etc., the fact remains that the respondent and their officers had taken longer time in producing before the appropriate authority and complaint to the police for necessary action. Though this Court is not the appropriate Court to go into the claim made by the petitioner and the respondent officer, with reference to the production of documents etc., the fact remains that the respondent and their officers had taken longer time in producing before the appropriate authority and complaint to the police for necessary action. Though as per Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the police officer has power to impound document in a matter like this, the officers of the Transport Department and police officer are expected to act quickly. As per Rule 421 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, any motor vehicle detained under section 207 shall be handed over to the police officer in charge of the nearest police station and it is the bounden duty of the police officer to keep the vehicle under safe custody until such time such officer receives a release order from the Regional Transport Officer. It is also brought to my notice that though the petitioner had sufficient and acceptable explanation for not bringing the correct document, it is said that in order to save time, the driver paid the maximum fine of Rs.100/- for not keeping the document and even thereafter, the authorities had taken longer time to release the vehicle. It is also relevant to note that when the petitioner has approached this Court on 10-12-2003 by filing the above writ petition and the same was posted for hearing on 11-12-2003. It is also stated that considering the explanation offered and the fine amount of Rs.100/- being paid by the driver, necessary instruction was issued to the officer concerned for release of the vehicle, the vehicle was not released until a positive direction from this Court till 16-12-2003. 6. Considering the nature of the violation, the statement that the petitioner had paid necessary tax due to the state, this Court feels that the respondent and other officers had taken longer time in releasing the vehicle and they are also responsible for keeping the vehicle near the check post without a proper protection and security when the vehicle costing over Rs.50 lakhs. Though the respondent and their officers are free to take proper action, if there is any violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and Government Orders, in a matter like this, particularly when the operator has secured proper permit and paid the required taxes, they are expected to take expeditious action either in launching prosecution or in releasing the vehicle. The conduct and the behaviour of the respondent and other officers are not appreciable one particularly in the case on hand. Though Mr. Natesan, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction for compensation for the inordinate relay taken by the respondents, it is being the first instance, I am not inclined to order compensation as claimed. However, this Court hopes that in future the respondent, particularly the officers of the check post will take expeditious action in registering the case forwarding the same to the officer concerned and releasing the vehicle then and there without any delay. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs.