ORDER Out of the 8 cases being disposed of by this order the first 7 were heard together and the last case was heard later on. However, since the grievance was identical the order of that case was also reserved, for it being disposed of along with the rest of the 7 cases. 2. In all these cases, the grievance of the petitioners is against the seizure and detention of their commercial vehicles loaded with goods for being transported to their destinations. In all the cases seizures was made by the Enforcement Officer-cum-Motor Vehicle Inspector of the district on the allegation of violation of different provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Seizure memos were handed over to the driver or in-charge of the vehicle and the vehicles were detained. This power appears to have been exercised by the Enforcement Officers in terms of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In all the cases, the bona fide of the Enforcement Officer has been questioned and it is stated that all the documents, required to be produced, were produced before the Enforcement Officers when the vehicles were intercepted. However, they kept the papers with themselves with malafide design and seized the vehicles and detained them giving seizure memos in which it was falsely mentioned that the offences had been committed under different sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. In CWJC No.19458, i.e., the first case a counter affidavit has also been filed in which it has been stated that the Enforcement Officer has already filed a prosecution report before the concerned Magistrate. In CWJC No.17646 of 2012 also a counter affidavit has been filed and it has been stated that, in terms of the interim orders of this Court, vehicle has been released. 3. Learned Addl.A.G.No.-10 appeared in all the cases for respondents and he took a very fare stand in the matter. He submitted that in exercise of his powers under Section 207 of the said Act, an Enforcement Officer has the authority to intercept a moving vehicle, inspect the same, demand papers and if he has reasons to believe that the vehicle was being used in contravention of the different provisions of the Act and Rules, he can seize the same and detain, it pending submission of the prosecution report before the concerned Magistrate for cognizance of the offence. However, he fairly admitted that in normal practice this power is often being misused by the concerned officers for extraneous considerations and with malafide design. Hence, he submitted that he was not opposed to the prayer of the petitioners for release of the vehicles, which may be ordered subject to any proceeding before any competent court, but this Court should pass orders with such necessary directions so that such misuse of power by the concerned officers may be reduced to the minimal. In this connection, he referred to a judgment of a Bench of this Court (N.P.Singh, J.) in the case of R.G.Holdings Private Limited Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr.[ 2008 (2) PLJR 538 ] and submitted that this Court has already noticed that, in view of the frequent complaints being received in respect of the conduct of Enforcement Officers, the Government had already issued a circular, namely, Circular No.2801 dated 28.08.2000, directing any authority, who had seized the vehicle, that if the party did not appear within 24 hours of the seizure of the vehicle and requested for compounding, the case must be reported to the competent criminal court for initiation of prosecution and the vehicle must be handed over for judicial custody by the court. He accepted that still the Enforcement Officers are not complying with these directions. In the circumstances, cases were reserved by this Court for orders. 4. From the perusal of the said judgment of this Court, referred to by learned Addl. A.G. No.-10, it appears that, in somewhat similar circumstances, this Court considered various issues and has taken pains to go into the scheme of the law and powers, duties and obligations of the parties. The Court noticed that two safeguards were provided in Section 207, namely, (i) that the officer concerned could take action of seizure and detention of the vehicle only if he had “reason to believe” of any contravention of law and (ii) that instead of seizing the vehicle he could seize the certificate of registration and ask the parties to produce other documents before him. After examining the various provisions of law, the Court also came to the conclusion that it was not necessary in law to carry all the documents in original and, if the identity of the in-charge of the vehicle was established and the driving licence in original was produced, opportunity could be given to him to produce rest of the papers within the time limit prescribed in law. In the judgment, the Court also noticed that in an earlier case of Munna Lal Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [ 2008(2) PLJR 518 ] the respondents had filed a counter affidavit before the Court in which it was admitted that, on complaints being received that Enforcement Officers were detaining vehicles and virtually blackmailing transporters, raids were conducted and from possession of the Enforcement Officers substantial unaccounted money were recovered. Hence, to get over such malpractices, the circular no.2801 dated 28.06.2000 was issued in public interest. The Court also noticed that, considering this stand in the said case, the Court had directed all the concerned seizing officers to forward the case to the concerned criminal court immediately if compounding was not availed of. The said two judgments of the court deals with all the aspects of the matter and they need not be discussed herein by this Court again, except observing that this Court is in respectful agreement with the views of the learned Single Judge in the said two judgments. 5. Out of these 8 cases, only in two cases counter affidavits have been filed and only in one of the two cases it is stated that prosecution report has already been filed by the Enforcement Officer before the concerned criminal court. In other cases, the respondents could not get the opportunity to file counter affidavit. In the circumstances, in absence of proper opportunity to the respondents, it is not possible for this Court to hold the action of the concerned Enforcement Officer as illegal, malafide or without jurisdiction. But taking cue from the said two judgments of this Court and the said circular no. circular no.2801 dated 28.06.2000 issued by the Government in the matter, this Court can at least hold that the Enforcement Officers are not authorized to detain the vehicles with them for more than 24 hours. But taking cue from the said two judgments of this Court and the said circular no. circular no.2801 dated 28.06.2000 issued by the Government in the matter, this Court can at least hold that the Enforcement Officers are not authorized to detain the vehicles with them for more than 24 hours. It is further held that if the parties do not approach the concerned Enforcement Officers within 24 hours with the papers or for praying in writing for time for producing papers and/or for compounding the offences, they must file the prosecution report to the concerned criminal court and hand over the vehicle to the court for taking it in judicial custody. This Court further holds that any Enforcement Officer violating this order may be held answerable in a proceeding against him initiated in accordance with law and may also be personally liable for payment of all damages and compensation to the vehicle owner and owner of the goods loaded thereon. As and when any such lapse by Enforcement Officer is reported or comes to the knowledge of the Department, the Department is directed to take immediate action against him. This will be without prejudice to the right of the vehicle owner or owner of the goods to initiate proceeding for damages and compensation against the concerned Enforcement Officer. Once the prosecution report is submitted before the concerned criminal court, the concerned party will be at liberty to move the court for release of the vehicle under the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which (the court), in exercise of the power under the said section, can always release the vehicle and the goods loaded thereon on such bond and surety and with such terms and conditions as it may deem fit and proper, pending final decision in the case. In appropriate cases where in the prosecution report the dimensions, specifications or others features of the vehicle or the loaded goods is also made an issue, the court may take such steps, as may be appropriate, for recording of dimensions, specifications etc. of the vehicle or goods in the presence of the parties, for being referred to in the case later on, before releasing the vehicle and the goods. of the vehicle or goods in the presence of the parties, for being referred to in the case later on, before releasing the vehicle and the goods. But in any case the court, in seisin of the matter, must keep in mind that detaining a vehicle and the goods loaded thereon for long may be prejudicial to the interest of the party concerned and he may suffer irreparable damage and loss even if the prosecution is finally dropped against him. Hence, in the circumstances, for the provisional release of vehicle the court must keep in mind the abnormal delay being caused in such matters, although it has to hold a summary proceeding in terms of Section 208 of the Act and, therefore, should exercise its jurisdiction taking into account considerations of equity in the matter, unless the court concerned ensures final conclusion of the proceeding itself in a shortest possible time. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mentioned a slip on 01.11.2012 in court, informing that, except C.W.J.C. No. 19458 of 2012, the other cases have become infructuous. Hence, except the said writ application, the rest of the cases are disposed of as such. 7. So far as C.W.J.C. No. 19458 of 2012 is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that as to what action the Enforcement Officer has taken after the detention of the vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-38Q-3712 (fixed container six wheeler-Etcher). Hence, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to appear before the Enforcement Officer with a copy of this order together with an application with offer either to produce the required papers or compound the offences. On receipt of such application from the petitioner, and if the Enforcement Officer has not already submitted the prosecution report to the concerned court, he shall entertain the same and do the needful for release of the vehicle with goods loaded, with or without a bond or undertaking in any manner he may consider necessary, and shall release the same to the owner of the vehicle or his duly authorized representative on proper identification, positively within 24 hours from the time of receipt of this order of the Court, which shall be subject to any action/proceeding in the matter in accordance with law. However, in case the Enforcement Officer has already submitted the prosecution report and has handed over the vehicle to the custody of the court, petitioners will be at liberty to approach the concerned criminal court requesting it for exercise of its power under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, this Court is sure, will be exercised by the concerned criminal court in proper appreciation of the law and its jurisdiction under the said provision of Code of Criminal Procedure as explained above. 8. The writ applications are, thus, disposed of in the manner indicated and in terms of the observations and directions as above.