Munirathnam Mudaliar vs Regional Transport Officer

Rajasekhara Murthy, J.—The petitioner is the registered owner of a motor vehicle registered in Andhra Pradesh as ADC 4037 and had a Special Permit valid upto 26-1-1986. It was checked by the Sr. Motor Vehicles Inspector, Mysore, on 20-1-1986 at about 4,15 p.m. at Gundlepet Check Post and seized it for the reasons stated in the check report.

This seizure is challenged in this Writ Petition which was filed on 23-1-1986, On an urgent motion made by the petitioner''s Counsel, the Petition was taken up for preliminary hearing on the same day.

After hearing the petitioner, I directed the learned Government Pleader to take notice regarding rule and the interim prayer. He, however, prayed for time till next day to seek instructions and the matter was taken up for hearing on 24th.

Sri Dattu submitted that he could not contact the concerned officer to seek instructions since he had very short time. I have, therefore, heard both sides on merits and considering the reasons stated by the checking officer in the check report, the following order is made.

The petitioner had obtained the special permit valid upto 26-1-1986 to carry tourists form Nageri in Chittoor District to various places mentioned in the permit which included Mysore and Ooty via Gundlepet. That it had a valid permit is not in dispute as indicated in the check report itself. There were 60 adult passengers in the vehicle who are travelling as per the special permit issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport, Chittoor.

There was therefore no reason to seize the vehicle for any contravention contemplated u/s 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicles Inspector did not Stop there, but he proceeded further and checked the chassis number and the engine number and tallied it with the entries made in the R.C. Book and found that they did not tally. He immediately came to the conclusion that the permit issued to the vehicle in question was not a valid permit and that therefore, was not authorised to ply in the State of Karnataka. He was therefore of the opinion that the petitioner was liable to pay the tax to the Karnataka State u/s 3 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and recording these reasons the Motor Vehicles Inspector seized the vehicle.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said seizure, has challenged the same in this Writ Petition.

The main ground on which the seizure is challenged is, that the Motor Vehicles Inspector exceeded his powers as conferred under Rule 367-A of the Motor Vehicles Rules and that therefore seizure is illegal.

It is argued by Sri Achar, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Motor Vehicles Inspector is not vested with any power to seize any vehicle covered by a valid permit issued by an outside authority and the seizure of the vehicle on the ground the chassis number of the Motor Vehicle was different from what was recorded in the R. C. Book, was without authority of law.

It is further argued by Sri Achar that on account of this illegal and unwarranted action on the part of the Motor Vehicles Inspector the tourists who were proceeding to Ooty have been standard a Gundlepet from 4-15 p.m. on 20th of this month Being left with no other alternative, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate relief.

It is (sic)rgued by Sri Dattu, learned High Court Government Pleads that the action, taken by the Motor Vehicles Inspector is justifiable by virtue of the general powers vested in him by Section 133A (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is, therefore, his contention that since the chassis number and the engine number did not tally with the numbers recorded in the R.C. Book, it was well within his powers to conclude that the permit issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport, Chittoor, was not a valid permit. Therefore, the Motor Vehicles Inspector was justified in seizing the vehicle on the further assumption that the petitioner was liable to pay the tax to the State of Karnataka under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. This would be the consequence according to the learned Counsel, since the entry into this State would itself be unlawful and that therefore, the petitioner would be liable to pay tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act.

Rules are framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it u/s 133A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act known as Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, Rule 367A of the Rules specifies the powers to be exercised by any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department of and above the rank of Inspector of Motor Vehicles, under the provisions of Sections 73,86(1), 88, 89(b), 90, 106(1) & (3), 128, 129 and 129A of the Act, This Rule indicates that the officers referred to in the said Rule are empowered to exercise the powers referred to in the Sections therein, such as power to have the vehicle weighed, power to insist on production of licence and certificate of registration ; to insist on any information regarding the name and address of the owner, driver and conductor, inspection of the motor vehicle involved in an accident ; to insist on production of Certificate of Insurance ; power to arrest under the circumstances referred to in Section 128, power to impound the documents referred to in Section 129 and power to detain the vehicles used without Certificate of Registration or permit as provided in Section 129A.

The Motor Vehicles Inspector is also vested with general powers of enquiry u/s 133A(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act which includes examination and enquiry and to ascertain whether the provisions of the Act and Rules are being observed, to inspect and search any premises in case of any offence being committed and such other powers as are enumerated in Sub-section (4) of Section 133A.

On a perusal and critical examination of the powers under the Act which a Motor Vehicles Inspector can exercise under the Act, such powers are circumscribed by the limits and the provisions referred to in Rule 367A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules. The general powers of enquiry and inspection referred to in Sub-section (4) of Section 133A are no doubt provided for the purpose of administration of the Act. But the question that arises on the facts of the present case is, whether the Motor Vehicles Inspector exceeded his powers in seizing the vehicle for the reasons stated in the check report ?

On the facts of the present case, it cannot be disputed that the vehicle had a special permit issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport, Chittoor and it was valid upto 26-1-1986. In cases of special permits issued by the Government in respect of any motor vehicle registered in any State other than the State of Karnataka, by virtue of the Notification No. HD 72 TMT 61 dated 22-11-1962 issued by the Government of Karnataka in exercise of powers conferred by Section 16(1) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, such vehicles are exempted from payment of tax under the State Act. That the vehicle in this case was entitled to such exemption as provided under the Notification cannot therefore also be disputed. Therefore, the question of payment of tax to this State did not arise.

If no tax is payable to the State of Karnataka and no offence or contravention as is referred to in Section 129A of the Act can be made put, no vehicle having a valid special permit issued by the outside authority can be seized by any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department of this State.

But, the Motor Vehicles Inspector in this case has overstepped his powers in seizing the vehicle which had valid special permit solely on the ground that the chassis number and the engine number differed from the number entered in the R.C. Book.

u/s 32, for any alteration regarding the vehicle, the particulars of which are contained in the Certificate of Registration, without the permission of the registering authority, is dealt with as a contravention of the provision of the Act and punishable u/s 112. The authority to deal with such provisions is the Original Registering Authority for the purpose of Section 32 of the Act. ''Original Registering Authority'' means registering authority in whose records the registration of the vehicle is recorded. Therefore, having regard to the scheme of the Act and the powers vested in the Registering Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, for any alteration referred to in Section 32, it is the Original Registering Authority who alone has jurisdiction to take such action as is required to be taken under the Act.

In this view of the matter, the seizure made by the Motor Vehicles Inspector in this case is wholly without jurisdiction and it is nothing but a high handed and indiscreet action on the part of the Motor Vehicles Inspector. This is a case where it clearly betrays the ignorance of the Motor Vehicles Inspector of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, vis-a-vis the powers of seizure vested in him u/s 129A of the Act, dehors the powers vested u/s 11A of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The officers of the Transport Department cannot sit in judgment over the permits issued by outside authorities.

For the reasons stated above, I hold that no tax was payable to this State for the reasons recorded by the checking officer. The only contravention for which the Inspector had assumed, he had jurisdiction to deal with, was the alteration of the particulars of registration and further inferred that the vehicle had therefore no valid permit.

For any seizure that may be effected by the authorised officer, the power of seizure is traceable to one or the other grounds referred to in Section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act, namely, for the contravention of any of the conditions of the permit relating to the route on which, area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used. It is only for such contraventions that he may detain the vehicle and hand it over to the police for temporary safe custody until further action to prosecute u/s 123 of the Act is taken.

Proviso to Section 129A prohibits the seizure of any vehicle if it is found that the motor vehicle has been or being used without the permit required by Section 42(1) of the Act. It also vests discretion with the officer to seize the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle instead of seizing the vehicle itself in such a case. Therefore, on the facts of the present case, the seizure cannot be justified u/s 129A of the Act.

The consequence of this illegal seizure made by the Motor Vehicles Inspector is that the passengers who were on their way to Ooty were stranded at Gundlepet from 4.15 p.m. on 20th of this month and the petitioner is driven to seek relief before this Court in this Writ Petition which was filed on 23rd of this month. Matter was taken up for disposal out of turn in view of the hardship and inconvenience caused to the tourists by this unwarranted action on the part of the Motor Vehicles Inspector. It is needless to say that the indiscreet action of the Motor Vehicles Inspector has caused untold hardship and inconvenience to the passengers for no fault of theirs. This is an eminently fit case where the Inspector, for his high-handed action should be penalised. I, therefore, direct the Commissioner for Transport to recover Rs. 1,000/- from him and pay it over to the petitioner to make good the loss and inconvenience caused to the passengers and the owner. The Petition is, therefore, allowed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 250/-.

The documents impounded shall be returned to the petitioner and the Learned Government Pleader is directed to instruct the authorities by the speediest communication available and see that the vehicle is released before this evening and report the matter to me on Monday 27th.