Case Name: Subhrangsu Panda v. State of West Bengal & Others
Citation: WPA 9004 of 2024 with CAN 1 of 2024
Court: Calcutta High Court
Bench: Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
Date of Judgment: 24 July 2025
Acts/Sections Referred: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 206(1), 206(3) and 207; Constitution of India, Article 226
Case Type: Motor Vehicle Act / Licence Seizure / Natural Justice / Traffic Enforcement
1. Introduction
The case of Subhrangsu Panda v. State of West Bengal & Others arose from a writ petition filed by a practising advocate before the Calcutta High Court who alleged that a traffic sergeant had unlawfully seized his driving licence for an alleged speeding violation and had demanded cash payment of a fine rather than accepting legally mandated payment modes. The case addresses critical questions about the procedural safeguards governing the seizure of driving licences by traffic officials, the right of citizens to contest traffic violations before competent judicial authorities, and the constitutional dimensions of arbitrary police conduct that deprives a citizen of personal documents without following prescribed legal procedures. The judgment is significant for its affirmation of the rule of law in traffic enforcement and for the guidelines it issued to regulate the conduct of traffic officials.
2. Summary of Facts
On 26 March 2024, the Petitioner, an advocate practising before the Calcutta High Court, was stopped by Traffic Sergeant Palash Halder at the intersection of Khidirpur Road and A.J.C. Bose Road while driving from Kakdwip to Howrah. The Petitioner was allegedly driving at seventy-seven kilometres per hour in a sixty kilometre per hour zone. The Petitioner disputed the speeding allegation and insisted on contesting the charge through the proper online process before a competent judicial officer, rather than paying an on-the-spot compound fine.
The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent Traffic Sergeant demanded a cash payment of Rupees one thousand as an on-the-spot fine, which the Petitioner refused, insisting on the legally mandated UPI digital payment system instead. When the Petitioner declined to pay in cash, his driving licence was confiscated. The Petitioner further alleged that the confiscation was done without providing the interim acknowledgment required by Section 206(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. An intervening advocate in the same writ petition alleged a similar experience and stated that he had been compelled to pay Rupees five hundred in cash to have his car keys returned.
3. Issues Before the Court
(i) Whether the seizure of the Petitioner’s driving licence by the Traffic Sergeant was lawful under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and whether the procedural requirements including the issuance of an interim acknowledgment under Section 206(3) had been complied with.
(ii) Whether demanding cash payment and refusing to accept digital payment modes constituted unlawful conduct by the Traffic Sergeant, and whether disciplinary measures were warranted.
4. Arguments by Both Parties
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners:
The Petitioners contended that the seizure of the driving licence was unlawful as no interim acknowledgment in the prescribed form had been issued under Section 206(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The demand for cash payment violated official guidelines mandating acceptance of digital payment modes. The Petitioners argued that the conduct of the Traffic Sergeant amounted to a violation of their constitutional right to fair legal process and that the pre-filled compound slip handed to the Petitioner, declaring guilt without any inquiry or opportunity to be heard, violated the principles of natural justice.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondent State:
The State contended that traffic officials have statutory authority to seize driving licences in cases of traffic violations and that the seizure was in exercise of this authority. The State maintained that the procedures followed were in accordance with applicable rules.
5. Reasonings and Findings
The Calcutta High Court found in favour of the Petitioners and held that the conduct of the Traffic Sergeant was irregular and violated the procedural requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court held that while traffic officials have authority to seize driving licences for certain specified offences under Section 206(1) of the Act, this power must be exercised with “reason to believe” based on sufficient cause, which requires an objective assessment and not merely personal suspicion or arbitrary judgment.
The Court found that the Traffic Sergeant had failed to issue the mandatory interim acknowledgment under Section 206(3), which is a procedural requirement that ensures the licence-holder is given a formal receipt for the confiscated document and is informed of the basis for seizure. The handing over of a pre-filled compound slip declaring guilt without any opportunity for the Petitioner to contest the allegation was found to violate the right to fair legal process. The Court also noted that cash demands by traffic officials undermine the integrity of traffic enforcement and pointed to the mandatory acceptance of digital payment modes.
6. Judgment and Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court allowed the petition, directed the return of the Petitioner’s driving licence, and issued guidelines to regulate the conduct of traffic officials. The guidelines mandated strict compliance with the procedural requirements for licence seizure under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prescribed acceptance of digital payment modes, and directed that citizens be afforded the opportunity to contest traffic violation charges before competent judicial authorities. The judgment is an important affirmation of citizens’ rights against arbitrary police conduct in traffic enforcement.
7. Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Under what circumstances may a traffic official seize a driving licence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
Under Section 206(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a police officer or other authorised person may seize the driving licence of a person who is alleged to have committed certain specified offences if there is reason to believe based on sufficient cause that the person has committed the offence. The power must be exercised in accordance with the prescribed procedure including issuance of an interim acknowledgment.
Q2. What is the interim acknowledgment required under Section 206(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
Section 206(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires the traffic official who seizes a driving licence to issue an interim acknowledgment to the holder of the licence. This acknowledgment serves as a temporary document certifying that the licence has been seized and informing the holder of the procedure for its return. Failure to issue this acknowledgment renders the seizure procedurally defective.
Q3. Are citizens entitled to contest traffic violation charges before a judicial officer?
Yes. Citizens who dispute traffic violation charges have the right to contest them before the competent judicial authority. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for a compounding procedure as one option, but citizens who do not wish to compound the offence are entitled to have the matter adjudicated by a court.
Q4. Is cash the only acceptable mode of payment for traffic fines?
No. Traffic fines in India may be paid through prescribed digital payment modes including UPI and other government-approved payment systems. Traffic officials who demand cash and refuse to accept digital payment modes act contrary to official guidelines and such conduct may be reported to the concerned authorities.
Q5. What remedies are available against arbitrary or unlawful conduct by traffic officials?
Citizens who experience arbitrary or unlawful conduct by traffic officials may file complaints with superior police officers, approach the State Human Rights Commission, or file writ petitions before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate relief including return of confiscated documents, directions to the concerned officials, and compensation in appropriate cases.
