Karnataka HC directs transport authorities to restore registration of Mercedes

The Karnataka High Court has said that it is expected of the RTO officials to act with fairness, transparency, empathy, and a high sense of public duty. Justice Jyoti M observed this while directing the officials to return a Mercedes vehicle, seized by the RTO officials, to its owner and to restore the registration of the car.

“This court is constrained to observe that the cancellation of the vehicle registration during the pendency of the writ petition is legally untenable and cannot be sustained, as the subject matter is sub judice. The action taken by the government appears to be a flagrant disregard for court proceedings, taking the law into its own hands, and consequently, the order deserves to be set aside,” Justice Jyoti said.

The matter pertains to the Mercedes-AMG G 63, which was first purchased in Karnataka then bought by a person in Himachal Pradesh and again bought by the petitioner, a resident of Mangaluru. The petitioner Neeraj Kumar Sharma contended that he had bought the vehicle in 2025 and registered it with the RTO, Udupi.

When his car was parked in Mysuru, a special checking squad of the RTO seized the vehicle. The state contended that the petitioner has altered the relevant documents by changing the vehicle description from Mercedes-Benz BENZ-GL-63-AMG to GLA 200 GDI. It is claimed that the value of the Mercedes-Benz BENZ-GL-63-AMG is approximately Rs 1,96,95,000, whereas the value of the GLA 200 GDI is only about Rs 35,00,000. The registration was cancelled when the writ petition was pending before the court.

The court noted that the officer who seized the vehicle was merely assigned the responsibility of submitting a report under the supervision of the Regional Transport Officer, Mysuru (West). However, he acted beyond the scope of his authority as though he himself were the Regional Transport Officer of Mysore (West) and had seized the vehicle before submitting the report, the court said.

The court further said, “It 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, prima facie, appears to be arbitrary and is liable to be deprecated. I may venture to say that the act on the part of the Government, in proceeding to cancel the registration during the pendency of the writ petition, deserves to be condemned. This Court finds such conduct on the part of the respondent authorities to be highly improper.”