In a strongly worded judgment, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has overturned the confiscation of a schoolteacher’s car by the Excise and Taxation Department, condemning the authorities for violating legal procedures and misusing the vehicle for nearly two years.
The case centered on Marya Fiaz, a schoolteacher who purchased a 1990 model vehicle based on the official registration book issued by the Motor Registration Authority (MRA), which listed nine lawful owners over 20 years. After submitting the transfer documents on January 21, 2020, her husband was told the same evening that the car needed to be returned for forensic examination a request that triggered a protracted legal ordeal.
Without notifying the petitioner, the Excise Department seized the car, conducted a forensic test, and issued a confiscation order on March 5, 2020. For almost two years, the department kept the car in its custody and used it for official purposes, leaving the petitioner without transportation or legal recourse.
In the July 11 judgment, authored by Justice Sarfraz Ejaz Ishaq Khan, the IHC ruled that the department had failed to follow mandatory provisions of the Islamabad Capital Territory (Seizure and Disposal of Motor Vehicles) Rules, 2014. Specifically, it ignored Rule 5, which requires verifying the bona fide ownership of a seized vehicle, and wrongly jumped to Rule 7, which pertains to confiscation.
The court declared the confiscation legally untenable, stating:
“The petitioner has been made to pay for the department’s failure to fulfil its duties.”
The IHC also reprimanded the department for blaming the petitioner for issues in past registrations, stating that it could not disown its own registration documents and penalize an innocent buyer.
While a forensic report had identified cut-and-weld marks on the car chassis, the lab could not determine when or by whom the tampering was done. Furthermore, no stolen vehicle was ever linked to the car, and the petitioner was cleared of any wrongdoing.
Calling the confiscation an abuse of authority, the court ruled that the Motor Vehicle Ordinance does not permit such action unless the car is permanently unfit for use a condition that did not apply here. The court reaffirmed that the confiscation order was invalid and emphasized the need for institutional accountability.
Justice Khan wrote that this case served as a test of administrative conduct, urging departments to adopt a more humane and just approach, especially toward low-income individuals.
“The Rules make it mandatory on them to be humane and considerate to bona fide purchasers of vehicles,” the ruling stressed.
The court had previously ordered the release of the vehicle in March 2022, but the legal fight continued for over five years, reflecting the petitioner’s persistence and the department’s repeated procedural lapses.
The verdict closed with a powerful reminder: innocent buyers should not bear the consequences of systemic failure, and the rule of law must be upheld in both letter and spirit.
