JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Deo Raj Singh with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.8.2008 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in case No. 1453 of 2008 whereby the application filed by the applicant for releasing the vehicle No. U.P. 81 F 9077 has been rejected and to issue a direction for releasing the vehicle No. U.P. 81 F 9077 (Mini bus) in favour of the applicant subject to furnishing adequate security by the applicant to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned or to pass such other order which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The facts in brief of this case are that during course of the usual checking of the vehicles, the vehicle No. U.P. 81 F 9077 (Mini Bus) belonging to the applicant was seized on 10.6.2008 by Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement) hereinafter referred as A.R.T.O. (E), under the provisions of Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 vide Seizure No. 616181 on the following grounds: 1. Driving license has not been shown, 2. Fitness certificate of the vehicle has not been shown, 3. The registration certificate of the vehicle has not been shown, 4. The tax deposit certificate has not been shown, 5. Additional tax deposit certificate has not been shown, 6. Certificate of insurance of the vehicle has not been shown, 7. Pollution certificate of the vehicle has not been shown, 8. The vehicle was carrying 40 passengers, out of 15 passengers were sitting on the roof of the vehicle. 9. Due to non-availability of the registration certificate, the capacity of carrying the passengers could not be known, 10. Without having any permit the vehicle was plying towards Chandaush. 3. After seizing the above mentioned vehicle the same was kept at the police station Gauhana, thereafter the applicant moved an application in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 1 Aligarh for releasing the vehicle in his favour by claiming himself to be bonafide owner of the vehicle concerned, the same has been rejected by learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 1, Aligarh on 27.8.2008, being aggrieved from the order dated 27.8.2008 this application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to exercise the inherent powers conferred under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 4. Heard Sri A.R. Debey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has purchased the vehicle No. U. P. 81 F 9077 from Rakesh Kumar, the same was transferred on 9.7.2003, whereas any vehicle cannot be transferred unless and until the taxes etc. are cleared off. The vehicle was purchased in the name of the applicant by the transferred authority, it shall be presumed that up to 9.7.2003 no tax was due against the aforesaid vehicle. The vehicle of the applicant was illegally challaned by the A.R.T.O. (E), Aligarh under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act on the basis of the false and frivolous allegation. 6. Against seizure of the vehicle the applicant submitted an application dated 7.8.2008 before A.R.T.O. (E), Aligarh with a prayer that the vehicle was illegally seized therefore an opportunity of being heard may be provided before passing any order but A.R.T.O. (E), Aligarh did not pass any order on that application, thereafter the applicant filed an application in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 1 Aligarh wherein information/challaney report was sought from A.R.T.O. (E), Aligarh. In pursuant to the information sought by the Court concerned, the report has been submitted that therein the vehicle has been seized on 10.6.2008, the same is kept at police station, Gauhana because no relevant documents could be shown to A.R.T.O. (E) and the additional tax of Rs. 5,21,320/- was due against the vehicle. The report of additional tax submitted by transport authority was illegal and the tax was imposed without affording any opportunity of being heard to the applicant, it was against the provisions of Section 16, 22, 24 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997 because the Section 18 of the Taxation Rules clearly postulates that no order can be passed without giving opportunity of being heard to the applicant for which the personal service be affected on the applicant. In the present case no personal service has been affected. 7. The applicant has also filed a representation dated 7.8.2008 before A.R.T.O. (E) but deliberately no order has been passed on that representation. The learned Magistrate concerned has committed a manifest error by not releasing the vehicle concerned in favour of the applicant because the applicant is bonafide owner of the vehicle. 7. The applicant has also filed a representation dated 7.8.2008 before A.R.T.O. (E) but deliberately no order has been passed on that representation. The learned Magistrate concerned has committed a manifest error by not releasing the vehicle concerned in favour of the applicant because the applicant is bonafide owner of the vehicle. The seizure of the vehicle under Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act happens to be for a temporary period, it cannot be detained for indefinite period. 8. The learned A.C.J.M. concerned has arbitrarily and illegally rejected the application filed by the applicant, considering the report submitted by transport authority. The Court of learned A.C.J.M. is a competent authority having the powers to release the vehicle in favour of the applicant subject to the furnishing adequate security or other conditions imposed by the Court concerned, therefore, this Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle in favour of the applicant as it has been exercised by other benches by and passing the interim order releasing the vehicles in favour of the registered owners on 15.7.2005 & 28.11.2002 in Crl. Misc. Application No. 9070 of 2005 and 10933 of 2002 respectively. The order dated 27.8.2008 is illegal, the same may be quashed and the vehicle No. U.P. 81 F 9077 (Mini Bus) may be released in favour of the applicant on furnishing adequate security and other undertakings which this Court may deems fit and proper for the purpose of releasing the vehicle concerned. 9. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the applicant has illegally approached to the Court of learned Addl. C.J.M. Court No. 1 Aligarh for releasing the vehicle in his favour because according to the provisions of Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act the remedy was available to the applicant to approach the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. The applicant has approached the A.R.T.O. (E) by moving the application dated 7.8.2008, the same was pending even then the applicant has approached the Court of learned A.C.J.M. Court No. 1 Aligarh which was having no jurisdiction to release the vehicle. The inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised for directing the authority concerned to release the vehicle concerned, because this application is not maintainable. The inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised for directing the authority concerned to release the vehicle concerned, because this application is not maintainable. So far as the merit of this case is concerned may be considered by the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. This application is devoid of merit, the same may be dismissed on the ground of non maintainability. 10. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case an important issue of law is involved regarding the jurisdiction of the Court of learned magistrate concerned and for exercising the inherent powers for releasing the vehicle seized under Section 207 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, in favour of the registered owner. To deal with this issue it is pertinent to consider the provisions of Section 207 Motor Vehicle Act 1988 which reads as under : “207. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit, etc.—(1) Any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle : Provided that where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or without the permit required by sub­section (1) of Section 66 he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgment in respect thereof. (2) Where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose.” 11. From the perusal of Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 the remedy available to the applicant to apply to the transport authority or to officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with relevant documents for the release of the vehicle. This issue has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Jagat Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others in Criminal. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5528 of 2000 (M/B) as reported in 2001 (1) AWC 551 . In its para-4 of the judgment which reads as under: “From a perusal of Section 207 of the Act it appears that the remedy available to the petitioner Is to apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with relevant documents for the release of the vehicle in terms of sub­Section (2) of Section 207 of the Act. We are of the view that since statute provides power to release the vehicle on the concerned authority under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Act in the application of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner should act according to the statute and take appropriate steps in terms of Section 207(2) of the Act and make appropriate application before the concerned authority. We are of the further view that it is incumbent on the part of the parties to follow the procedure laid by the statute and we have no jurisdiction or authority to direct release of the vehicle through Chief Judicial Magistrate with all respect to the other Divisions Bench orders which have been passed from time to time which are not in the form of judgment and in fact no ratio has been laid down therein. It is well settled that mere orders will not have binding nature unless a ratio has been laid down. “ 12. It is well settled that mere orders will not have binding nature unless a ratio has been laid down. “ 12. The issue has been considered by another Division Bench of this Court in case of Gyan Prakash Mishra v. Assistant Regional Transport Officer-II (Enforcement), Traffic Inspector, Traffic Police Lines and State of U.P. Through Secretary, Transport Department, 2006(9) ADJ 655 (DB) in which it has been held that the application for releasing must be considered by the authority after being satisfied with the vehicle complies with the requirement of the statutes. In view of the above A.R.T.O. (E) was directed by the Division Bench of this Court to consider the application for releasing of the vehicle in case he comes to the conclusion that he has not authority to release the vehicle, he must file the complaint with the competent Court forthwith to facilitate the remedy to approach the competent Court to release the vehicle. It has also been dealt within the case of Mazhar Ali Khan v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur and others (Manu)/U.P./0010/1996 observing that transport authority can not be justified in refusing to entertain the application for releasing. If the Transport Authority who has seized the vehicle has lodged complaint before the appropriate criminal Court, in that event, the Transport Authority will not pass any order on the release application but the registered owner has to approach criminal Court for releasing of the vehicle. 13. In the present case the Transport Authority concerned has not lodged any complaint before the criminal Court, in such circumstance, any criminal Court is not having the jurisdiction to release the vehicle which has been seized under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 because sub-section (2) of Section 207 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 clearly provides the mode of applying the application that is the owner or person incharge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by orders release the vehicle subject to such condition as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose. In such circumstances, the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 1, Aligarh was having no jurisdiction to release the vehicle of the applicant. In such circumstances, the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 1, Aligarh was having no jurisdiction to release the vehicle of the applicant. The learned A.C.J.M. Court No. 1, Aligarh has not committed any error in rejecting such application vide order dated 27.8.2008, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is refused. 14. So far as the issue exercising the inherent powers by this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is concerned, this Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to given effect of any order under this Court or to prevent the abuse of the process of any act or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the present case the vehicle has been seized under Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act, the same may be released by the transport authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government. In case where the complaint has not been filed by the authority concerned before the appropriate criminal Court. The criminal Court is not having jurisdiction to release the vehicle, therefore, the powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in such matters. So far as the contention made by learned counsel for the applicant that some other benches have passed the interim orders releasing the vehicles in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is concerned, the perusal of the order dated 15.7.2005 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9070 of 2005 and order dated 19.11.2002 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 10933 of 2002 shows that these are the interim orders and these orders have been passed without considering the provisions of Section 207(2) of Motor Vehicle Act, its benefit cannot be given to the applicant. In view of the above discussions, the powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in case where the vehicle has been seized under Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and no criminal complaint has been lodged by the transport authority before the appropriate criminal Court. Therefore, this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The proper remedy available to the applicant is to approach the transport authority or the officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government for the purpose of releasing the vehicle. 15. In view of the above discussions, this application is dismissed. ————