Statement — Government seeks active involvement of traffic police to impound erring autorickshaws and act against drivers who fleece passengers or fail to install required legal equipment. Conclusions: I. Erring autorickshaws cause inconvenience to the public. II. Impounding vehicles and legal action will caution other drivers/owners.

Introduction / Context:The directive aims to curb malpractices (fleecing, non-compliance with equipment norms). We examine whether the stated conclusions naturally flow from this policy move.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Misconduct harms commuters (overcharging, safety lapses).
• Proposed measures: impounding and legal action.

Concept / Approach:If the state intervenes with punitive steps, it presupposes public inconvenience or harm (I). Moreover, penalties and impounding are classic deterrents (II). Thus both conclusions follow from the rationale of the action.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) Link misconduct → public harm → justify enforcement.2) Enforcement with costs to violators → general deterrence effect.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either: understate the logical implications. Neither: ignores harm and deterrence inherent in the measures.

Common Pitfalls:Separating the policy from its implicit purpose (protect passengers) and mechanism (deterrence).

Final Answer:Both I and II follow.