Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has castigated the regional transport office (RTO) after one of its officers unilaterally confiscated a high-end car in the midst of legal proceedings, describing the authority’s action as unwarranted and highly improper.The case refers to the purchase of the car from a bank and its subsequent confiscation alleging documents were forged. The court said RTO officers are representatives of the state and are expected to act with fairness and a sense of public duty.Nihal Ahmed from Mangaluru bought a Mercedes-AMG G 63 from Bengaluru’s Sundaram Motors for Rs 1.9 crore with an HDFC Bank loan. On March 21, 2023, he sold the vehicle to a third party in Delhi without the lender’s knowledge. During investigations, Delhi police seized the vehicle and registered an FIR against Amar Motors, represented by Harmanpreet Singh Walia, for criminal conspiracy and cheating.Aggrieved by the seizure, HDFC Bank approached the chief metropolitan magistrate, New Delhi. The court passed an order in favour of HDFC Bank.On Aug 1, 2024, Nihal wrote to the bank, seeking an amicable settlement. On Sept 10 and 14, 2024, petitioner Neeraj Kumar Sharma, from Mangaluru, paid Rs 62.5 lakh through ICICI Bank towards the purchase of the vehicle.In parallel, armed with the court order, HDFC Bank took possession of the vehicle on Sept 17, 2024, placed it for auction, and the vehicle loan was settled through a one-time settlement of Rs 62.5 lakh. The car was later registered temporarily in Sharma’s name.On June 15, 2025, when the vehicle was parked in Mysuru, RTO officials confiscated it, alleging documents were not in order. They revoked its registration.Neeraj challenged the action in the high court. The govt contended that the petitioner had fabricated documents.Justice Jyoti M said Ranjit, an RTO officer posted at Bangalore (South) office, was merely assigned the responsibility of submitting a report under the supervision of the regional transport officer, Mysore (West). However, he exceeded his brief and seized the vehicle. The court said such action appears to be arbitrary and is liable to be deprecated.“Cancellation of registration during the pendency of the writ petition is legally untenable and cannot be sustained, as the subject matter is sub judice,” the judge said, directing the RTO to restore registration and hand over the vehicle to the petitioner.QUOTEIt is shocking to note that, despite the pendency of the writ petition before this court, the respondent authorities have chosen to cancel the vehicle’s registration. Such action … appears to be arbitrary and deserves to be condemned. Once this court is seized of the matter, any precipitative action is wholly unwarranted. Cancellation of registration is legally untenable as it’s sub judice. Govt action appears to be a flagrant disregard for court proceedings— Karnataka high court
