Kailash Narayan vs State of M.P. and Others

Hon. Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for release of his original documents and also the release of the vehicle No. MP30/P-0557-SC. In para 3 of the petition it is stated that petitioner has availed all the remedies available to him and there is no other alternative efficacious remedy available to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on 2007 AIR SCW 556 (Hardeo Motor Transport Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) submits that if proper tax is not paid by the petitioner, the respondents, at best can realize that tax but cannot seize the vehicle. Per contra, Shri Newaskar submits that the petition is mis conceived and reason for seizure of the vehicle was that the petitioner was not wearing uniform, batch and name plate and bus was over loaded.

Learrned counsel for the petitioner submits that various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act show that the total weight of a vehicle is provided and number of passengers is not provided. He placed reliance on Sections 113, 114 and 114 of the said Act.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The first contention of the petitioner by placing reliance on 2007 AIR SCS 556 (supra) is required to be turned down for the simple reason that petitioner''s vehicle is not seized for non-payment of tax. Thus, the said judgment has no application in the present case. The other judgments relied upon by the petitioner in para 5.7 of the writ petition have no application in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

The stand of the respondents is that as per permit, the petitioner is required to take a limited number of passengers beyond which it violates the condition of permit. By filing the compact disk (CD) (Annexure R-1), it is stated that the videography of the vehicle shows that the passengers beyond the permissible limit have been taken by the petitioner.

Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:-

Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit, etc.-(1) Any police officer or other person authorized in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of section 3 or section 4 or section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of section 66 or in contravention or any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle;

Provided that where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of section 3 or section 4 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of section 66 he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgment in respect thereof.

(2) Where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person incharge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government together with a the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose.

A bare perusal of this section would show that even the police authorities are empowered to seize the vehicle which is being used in contravention of various provisions including sub-section (1) of section 66. Sub-section (1) of section 66 reads as under:-

Necessity for permits.-(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing him the use of the vehicle in the place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:

A conjoint reading of section 207 with section 66(1) would show that powers are vested with the police authorities to seize the vehicle when condition of a permit is violated. Thus, it cannot be said that the action of the police authorities in seizing the vehicle of the petitioner is without authority. However, the petitioner has raised dispute regarding the date of recording of the CD. In other words, the contention of Shri Patel is that the CD contains two dates and if it is examined with Panchanama Annexure R-2, it is not clear that whether the recording is of the same date when Panchanama was recorded.

Sub-section (2) of section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes in-house remedy to the petitioner. The petitioner may file an application to the Transport authority or any other authorized officer for releasing the documents with release of his vehicle. A bare perusal of the communication Annexure -3 with return shows that petitioner''s earlier application has been sent to District Transport Officer, Bhind. Thus, the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy for the purpose of release of his vehicle. This is also settled in law that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. Thus, the authority as per sub-section (2) aforesaid, would be best suited to decide the aforesaid disputed questions of fact including validity of seizure of petitioner''s vehicle. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition.

The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a detailed representation before the concerned authority of Bhind. It is expected that if the said representation and application for release of vehicle is preferred, the said authority shall deal with it in accordance with law. It is expected that the interim relief application of the petitioner will be decided within seven days from the date of filing of the said application by the said authority. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.