ORDER 1. These two writ applications have been filed by the same petitioner on account of his two vehicles - Fixed Container Trucks - having been intercepted and seized at the Toll Plaza on Hazipur side of the Ganga Bridge on 18.10.2013 and 17.10.2013 respectively by the respondent Motor Vehicle Inspector, Patna on alleged violations of various provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The stand of the petitioner is that the vehicles were intercepted and fined earlier at Gopalganj. Hence, it could not be fined again. It is also a stand of the petitioner that on demand the driver and petitioner, who was also on accompanying, had produced all documents, but the Officer concerned was not satisfied and demanded illegal gratification apart from the fine. In the writ petition, it is denied that the driver and the petitioner or the vehicle itself had violated any provisions of the Act as alleged in the seizure list. It is stated that when the petitioner reached the concerned court to get the interim release of the vehicles he came to know that, till then, no report or documents had been submitted by the respondents to the court in respect of search and seizure of the vehicles. Hence, it is contended that act of the respondents was illegal and without any authority of law and, therefore, search and seizure was without jurisdiction. Through a supplementary affidavit, petitioner has brought on record the necessary documents in respect of valid plying of the vehicles in accordance with law. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Motor Vehicle Inspector himself. It is stated that when the vehicles were intercepted, the driver of the vehicle did not produce relevant papers on demand. It is also said that on search the vehicles were found short of certain requirements of law in many respects including manipulation in the structure of the vehicles themselves. In the second writ application, photographs of the vehicle have also been annexed with the counter affidavit. It is stated that on demand the drivers had sought for one week time to produce necessary papers and to pay fine for release of the vehicles which they failed to do. Accordingly, the prosecution report was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazipur on 25.10.2013 and the vehicles were placed in the custody of the court. 3. It is stated that on demand the drivers had sought for one week time to produce necessary papers and to pay fine for release of the vehicles which they failed to do. Accordingly, the prosecution report was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazipur on 25.10.2013 and the vehicles were placed in the custody of the court. 3. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit in the second case. With the rejoinder, a recent common order of this Court in identical matters has been annexed as Annexure-5. 4. The order, as contained in Annexure-5, is a reasoned and detailed one passed by this Court in which several directions were issued. This Court can do no better than reproduce the directions issued in the said order here in this case also and hold that the said directions are applicable and have to be followed in this case also:- "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. 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. 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." 5. This Court in the said earlier order had made it clear that in case any illegal action by the Motor Vehicle Inspector or any authority of the Transport Department resulting into damage and loss to the party is established in a particular case, the party will be well within his rights to take recourse to law for payment of damages and compensation. However, in the present case, the Motor Vehicle Inspector has stated on affidavit that, after waiting for the drivers to produce papers and compound offence, prosecution reports have been already filed in court and the vehicles have been transferred to the custody of the court. Thus, it is apparent that a substantive proceeding in accordance with law has been initiated in the matter before a court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere in the said proceeding at this stage or make any observation which may be affect the proceeding on merits in any way. 6. It goes without saying that, in case, the prosecution fails to prove the charges against the petitioner, he will be at liberty to take steps in accordance with law against the particular Motor Vehicle Inspector by name for damages and compensation and harassment due to seizure of the vehicles and for its damage during the custody, if any, and for compelling the petitioner to undergo protracted litigation. But for the present, this Court can only grant liberty to the petitioner to move the court concerned for interim release of the vehicles in terms of the provisions of Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If he does so the court concerned shall apply its discretion in the matter in accordance with law in the light of the observations and directions of this Court issued in its earlier order and reproduced hereinabove in this order which this Court holds shall be applicable in the present case also. 7. Both the writ applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.