JUDGMENT R Raghunandan Rao, J. - In all these writ petitions, the issues raised by the petitioners are similar and can be disposed of by a common order. 2. Brief facts, in all these writ petitions, are as follows: In the course of certain enquiries, it had come to the light that commercial vehicles having BS-III emission standards, registered in other states, which had initially been declared as scrap, were again registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, by production of fabricated documents showing as if these vehicles have BS-IV emission standards. After obtaining such registration certificates, it appears that the persons, who had obtained such registration certificates, by utilizing fabricated documents, had sold the said vehicles to innocent purchasers. It appears that 154 such vehicles had been sold to various purchasers in and around the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners, in all these cases, are such purchasers of commercial vehicles including heavy goods carriage vehicles. The vehicles purchased by the petitioners were seized at different places, at different points of time, by the officials of the transport department. After seizure of these vehicles, the authorities had cancelled the registration certificates granted earlier. Aggrieved by the said cancellation, the petitioners had approached the concerned Courts for relief. However, the petitioners were directed to approach the competent authorities for adjudication in the matter. The authorities, after giving due opportunity to all the petitioners, had rejected the applications of the petitioners confirming the order of the cancellation of registration certificates of the said vehicles. 3. In this manner, the petitioners, who have suffered the order of rejection, have approached this Court by way of the present set of writ petitions. The details of the writ petitions, name of the petitioners, their vehicles numbers and the authority who passed order of confirmation of cancellation of registration certificates, are as follows: Sl.No. Writ Petition No. Name of the Petitioner Vehicle registration No. Cancellation order No. & date and authority, who passed the order 1 W.P.No.23780/2020 Siddantham Ramanjaneyulu AP39V0246 & AP39V4806 Rc.No.38/C2/2020 dated 03.11.2020 by Regional Transport Officer Anantapur 2 W.P.No.21970/2020 P. Obulesu AP02TH3657 R.No.38/A1/2020 dated 23.07.2020 by Regional Transport Officer Anantapur 3 W.P.No.363/2021 Kolavali Subha Sekhar AP39T1484 R.No.AP2040257432020 Dated 21.12.2020 by Regional Transport Authority, Proddutur 4 W.P.No.481/2021 Kuppanna Gari Subba Reddy AP39X8941 R.No.AP2040257412020 Dated 21.12.2020 by Regional Transport Authority, Proddutur 4. Before adverting to further facts and grounds, it is necessary to point out that the petitioner in W.P.No.23780 of 2020, apart from seeking continuation of the registration certificate, had also sought release of the vehicle, in the event of cancellation of certificate, on the ground that he would be able to dismantle the vehicle and sell the same as scrap. This relief is not prayed by the writ petitioners in the other writ petitions. 5. The 2nd respondent had filed counter affidavits in these matters. In the counter affidavits, the list of 154 vehicles, which were involved in the fraud perpetrated by various persons, was set out. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that all these vehicles had been registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh on the basis of fake documents and criminal prosecution against the persons applying for such registration had been initiated apart from disciplinary proceedings being initiated against the concerned officers and staff of the transport department. The counter affidavit further went on to support the decision of the authorities in rejecting the applications of the petitioners for continuation of registration certificates of these vehicles. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the effect of emission of vehicles on the environment, had directed that commercial goods vehicles having BS-III emission standards should not be allowed to ply on the roads after a certain point of time. All such vehicles would require to be scrapped. 7. The registration certificates for the aforesaid 154 vehicles in the State of Andhra Pradesh, which includes the vehicles of the petitioners herein, appear to have been obtained on the basis of fake documents and the said documents were fabricated for the purpose of getting ban out the prohibition against the vehicles, which meet BS-III emission standards only and did not meet the BS-IV emission standards. 8. Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners, while not seriously challenging the impugned orders, would submit that even if the certificates of registration are to be cancelled, the ownership of the vehicles would continue to vest with the petitioners. He would further submit that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 there is a power of seizure to ensure that the vehicles without proper certification do not ply on the roads. However, there is no power of forfeiture. He would further submit that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 there is a power of seizure to ensure that the vehicles without proper certification do not ply on the roads. However, there is no power of forfeiture. In the circumstances, he would submit that the said vehicles shall have to be handed over to the petitioners, irrespective of whether the petitioners have sought for release of the vehicles for scraping them and selling them as scrap or not. 9. The learned Government Pleader for Transport submits that criminal cases have been initiated against the persons, who have perpetrated the fraud and all these vehicles would be necessary as material objects in the trial of those cases. He submits that in such circumstances, the vehicles cannot be released to the petitioners and the said vehicles cannot be scrapped. 10. No provision for forfeiture of the vehicles in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been brought in to my notice. While the authorities of the transport department are empowered to cancel the certificates of registration, as per law, they would not have the authority to confiscate the said vehicles and such vehicles would have to be released to the custody of the owners of the vehicles after cancellation of the registration certificate. 11. In these circumstances, the request of Sri Challa Gunaranjan for release of the vehicles to the petitioners to enable them to scrap them and sell the vehicles as scrap in order to recover whatever little amount they can recover, appears to be reasonable and in accordance with law. 12. The contention of the learned Government Pleader for transport that these vehicles are material objects in a criminal investigation and cannot be scrapped is only stated for being rejected. It is for the investigating officer, in the crimes registered in relation to this scam, to raise such issues and seek custody of the vehicles from the appropriate Court of criminal jurisdiction. There does not appear to have been any such attempt made by the investigating officer. In fact, when the matter came up on 28.06.2021, the writ petitions were adjourned to 06.07.2021 to grant some time for such purpose. The matter came up today i.e., 04.08.2021. However, there has been no attempt by the investigating officers either to implead themselves before this Court or to seize the vehicle and produce them before the criminal Court of appropriate jurisdiction. 13. The matter came up today i.e., 04.08.2021. However, there has been no attempt by the investigating officers either to implead themselves before this Court or to seize the vehicle and produce them before the criminal Court of appropriate jurisdiction. 13. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to direct that the vehicles should be retained till such time when the investigating officer will deign to take necessary steps. In any event, the rights of the petitioners to retrieve their vehicles from the transport department cannot be kept hostage to a probable course of action by the investigating officers in the crimes that are said to have been registered. 14. For all the above reasons, the writ petitions are partly allowed affirming the impugned orders passed by the respective authorities and directing the respondents to release the vehicles of the petitioners, which are the subject matter of the present writ petitions, into the custody of the petitioners to enable them to dispose of the said vehicles as scrap. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.