ORDER : 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be graciously pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the illegal seizure memo dated 04.06.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by Respondent No.3. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.C.G.-10-AY/6705. 2. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner together with the cost of this writ petition.” 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that petitioner is owner of a bus bearing No. C.G.-10AY-6705, which was seized by respondent No.3 vide vehicle seizure memo dated 04.06.2022 under the provisions of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short ‘the Act of 1988’) and Section 16 (3) of the C.G. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (In short ‘the Act of 1991’). 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner who is owner of Bus through his employee tried to apply for online special permit and to pay the tax but due to some technical glitch process could not be completed. Because of special pre-booking and prefixed programe of the passenger, they pressurised the driver to immediately start the vehicle to destination and under pressure driver started plying the vehicle in anticipation that permit will be issued shortly. 5. Petitioner had applied for permit for his Bus bearing No.C.G.- 10AY-6705 from 04.06.2022 to 07.06.2022. On the same date, the permit was issued vide Annexure P-2, however, on the same date i.e. 04.06.2022, vehicle of petitioner was seized by Assistant Transport Sub-Inspector. Petitioner deposited the required fees/tax for issuance of permit having valid registration certificate and after considering the application and other documents enclosed along with the application for grant of special permit, permit was granted. Respondent No.3/the employee/officer, who seized the vehicle on 04.06.2022 was not competent for seizing the vehicle under Section 16 (3) of the Act of 1991. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Section 16 of the Act of 1991 clearly prescribes the power of entry, seizure and detention of motor vehicles in case of non-payment of tax. He also submits that Section 16 of the Act of 1991 talks about Taxation Authority or any other officer authorised by the State Government. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Section 16 of the Act of 1991 clearly prescribes the power of entry, seizure and detention of motor vehicles in case of non-payment of tax. He also submits that Section 16 of the Act of 1991 talks about Taxation Authority or any other officer authorised by the State Government. Rule 16 of the Motoryan Karadhan Rules, 1991 (In short ‘the Rules of 1991’) deals with the procedure regarding entry and search which provides that any officer of Transport Department not below the rank of Transport Sub-Inspector may exercise the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act. Further Rule 17 of the Rules of 1991 provides for procedure for seizure and detention of motor vehicle in case of non-payment of tax. It is next contended that in the seizure memo, it is written in hand that 66/192-A of Motor Vehicle Act. Section 66 of the Act of 1988 deals with permit and Section 192-A of the Act of 1988 talks of punishment to be imposed upon violation of Sub Section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit. Aforementioned provision do not provide for seizure of vehicle and therefore, according to the seizure memo, seizure is made by respondent No.3 under the provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1988 and Section 16 (3) of the Act of 1991. The authority who seized the vehicle was not competent and therefore, seizure of the vehicle vide Annexure P-3 be set-aside/quashed being without jurisdiction. 7. Learned State counsel opposing the submission of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the submission of learned counsel for petitioner with respect to competency of authorities seizing the vehicle is not correct. It is contended that the State Government vide notification dated 25.10.2021 has authorized the public servant mentioned therein in which at Sr. No.19, all Assistant Transport Sub-Inspectors is also mentioned. It is also the contention of counsel for respondents that seizure of vehicle is by Inspector and the Assistant Transport Sub-Inspector is only the intercepting authority and not the officer, who seized the vehicle and therefore, the contention of petitioner is also not correct. He also contended that power to compound the offence as mentioned in the notification dated 25th October, 2021, includes the power to seize the vehicle. 8. He also contended that power to compound the offence as mentioned in the notification dated 25th October, 2021, includes the power to seize the vehicle. 8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused all the documents placed on record. 9. Perusal of seizure memo (Annexure P-3) would show that the date of seizure of public service vehicle is dated 04.06.2022 at 19.15 AM, name of the officer is mentioned as R.K. Nayak, Assistant Transport Sub-Inspector (ATSI) to be the officer, who seized the vehicle. In the printed form it is mentioned that the vehicle is seized under Section 207 of the Act of 1988 and Section 16 (3) of the Act of 1991. In the aforementioned facts of the case submission of learned counsel for State that seizure proceeding is drawn by Inspector of Transport Department in the face of Annexure P-3 is not correct. The Inspector Transport is only mentioned in the printed format of the seizure memo. In the seizure memo it is also mentioned that Section 66/192A of the Motor Vehicle Act and the reason assigned is, at the time of checking of the vehicle valid permit was not found. 10. Section 66 of the Act of 1988 deals with necessity for permits. Section 192A of the Act of 1988 talks of using vehicle without permit for which in the provision, penalty is provided. Section 207 of the Act of 1988 provides for power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit etc. 11. Section 207 of the Act of 1988 is extracted below for ready reference :- “207. Section 192A of the Act of 1988 talks of using vehicle without permit for which in the provision, penalty is provided. Section 207 of the Act of 1988 provides for power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit etc. 11. Section 207 of the Act of 1988 is extracted below for ready reference :- “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 or 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 sub-section (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 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 order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose.” 12. The respondents in their reply have pleaded that the impugned action of seizure of vehicle of petitioner was under Section 16 (3) of the Act of 1991 and there is no provision for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama. Learned counsel for petitioner has raised the ground along with others that the authority who seized the vehicle was not competent. The respondents in their reply have pleaded that the impugned action of seizure of vehicle of petitioner was under Section 16 (3) of the Act of 1991 and there is no provision for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama. Learned counsel for petitioner has raised the ground along with others that the authority who seized the vehicle was not competent. In the aforementioned facts of the case question arise for consideration of this Court is whether the Assistant Transport Sub-Inspector is competent to seize the vehicle in the facts of the case where seizure is under Section 16 (3) also. 13. Section 16 of the Act of 1991 deals with power of entry, seizure and detention of Motor Vehicles in case of non-payment of tax, Section 16 (3) of the Act of 1991 mentioned in the seizure memo which is relevant in the facts of the case is extracted below for ready reference :- “16. Power of entry, seizure and detention of Motor Vehicles in case of non-payment of tax. – (1) The Taxation Authority or any other officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf, may at all reasonable time enter into and inspect any motor vehicle or premises where he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle is kept for the purpose of verifying whether the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder are being complied with ; Provided that no officer shall be authorised under this sub-section with respect to motor cycles and motor cars. (2) Any person driving a motor vehicle in any public place shall, on being so required by the Taxation Authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government, produce- (a) the certificate of registration; (b) the token in evidence of the payment of tax; and (c) the certificate of insurance relating to the use of the vehicle and shall keep such vehicle stationary for such time as may be required by such authority or officer to satisfy himself that the tax in respect of such motor vehicle has been paid : Provided that in the case of a motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle; the certificates so required shall be produced for inspection within such period and in such manner as may be prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (3) The Taxation Authority or any officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may if it he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used without payment of tax, penalty or interest due, seize and detain such motor vehicle and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any step as may be considered proper for the temporary sale custody of such motor vehicle and for the realisation of tax due. (4) x x x x x (5) x x x x x (6) x x x x x (7) x x x x x (8) x x x x x” 14. Section 24 of the Act of 1991 envisages power to make rules. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 24 of the Act of 1991, the State Government formulated Chhattisgarh Motoryan Karadhan Rules, 1991. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1991 provided for manner of payment of tax etc. Rule 16 provides for procedure regarding entry and search and Rule 17 provides for procedure for search and detention of motor vehicle in case of non-payment of tax. 15. State Government vide notification No.F. 8-1-92-VIII, dated 9th January, 1992 had authorized all the officers of the Transport Department not below the rank of Assistant Transport Sub- Inspector for the purpose of the sub-section 2 and 3 of Section 16 of the Act of 1991. The notification is extracted below for ready reference :- “Notification No.F. 8-1-92-VIII, dated the 9th January, 1992. – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (No.25 of 1991), the State Government hereby authorises all officers of the Transport Department not below the rank of an Assistant Transport Sub- Inspector for the purposes of the said sub-sections.” 16. The provisions under sub-section 3 of Section 16 of the Act of 1991 provides for seizure and detention of motor vehicle which is being used without payment of taxes, penalty or interest due. Under the aforementioned provisions, taxation authorities or any officers authorized by the State Government in this behalf are conferred with the power to seize and detain vehicle. Vide notification dated 09.01.1992, the State Government has authorized all the officers of the Transport Department not below the rank of Assistant Transport Sub- Inspector. 17. Under the aforementioned provisions, taxation authorities or any officers authorized by the State Government in this behalf are conferred with the power to seize and detain vehicle. Vide notification dated 09.01.1992, the State Government has authorized all the officers of the Transport Department not below the rank of Assistant Transport Sub- Inspector. 17. In case at hand, the seizure memo which is placed on record as Annexure P-3 would show that the proceeding of seizure has been made by Assistant Transport Sub- Inspector in exercise of powers under Section 16 (3) of the Act of 1991 and Section 207 of the Act of 1988 who in view of notification dated 09.01.1992 is the competent authority authorized by the State Government. 18. As in this petition, petitioner has only raised question with regard to jurisdiction and authority of the Assistant Transport Sub- Inspector to take action under Section 16 (3) of the Act of 1991 to be not competent authority authorized by the State Government, in view of the above discussions, the said submission and the grounds raised in this petition is not sustainable and it is accordingly repelled. 19. For the forgoing discussions, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.