AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Nagamuthu, J.—In all these matters, since common issues have been raised, they are heard together and disposed of by means of this
common order. For the sake of convenience, let me refer to the facts of the case in W.P.(MD) No. 17937 of 2013.
In W.P.(MD) No. 17937 of 2013, admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the Maxi Cab Van bearing registration No. TN 31 M 6043. The
third respondent made an inspection of the said vehicle on 17.10.2013 at 6.30 p.m. and found that the vehicle was used in violation of the permit
conditions. On that allegation, the vehicle was seized by the third respondent. Thereafter, for safe custody, it was handed over to the fourth
respondent and now the vehicle is in the custody of the fourth respondent. While so, the petitioner has made representations on 18.10.2013 and
24.10.2013 to the respondents, seeking return of the vehicle to him. But, there has been no response. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court
with this Writ Petition.
In W.P.(MD) No. 17937 of 2013, it is mainly contended by the petitioner that respondents 2 to 4 have got no power to detain the vehicle for
an indefinite period without passing any order under Sub Section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel for the
petitioner would further submit that detaining the vehicle for an indefinite period for the minor violation committed by the petitioner is a violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the third respondent is competent to seize the vehicle and such power is given to
him under sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He would further submit that as per Rule 421 of the Tamil Nadu
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the third respondent has been empowered to handover the vehicle to the officer in charge of the nearest Police
Station, so as to keep it under safe custody until such time the Police Officer receives a release order from the authorised officer mentioned in sub-
rule (2).
Here, in this case, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, since the fourth respondent is the officer in charge of the nearest
Police Station, the third respondent handed over the vehicle to him. Now, according to him, it is for the second respondent (Regional Transport
Officer) to pass appropriate order under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, releasing the vehicle to the petitioner. But so
far, no such order has been passed.
I have considered the above submissions.
Before going into the factual aspects, let us have a look into Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows:
Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit, etc. - (1) Any police officer or other person authorised 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 of Section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of 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 acknowledgement in respect thereof.
(2) Where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to
the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with 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 close reading of the above provision would make it clear that the third respondent-Motor Vehicles Inspector has got power to detain the
vehicle on the allegation that there had been certain contravention of the conditions of permit. After such seizure, the vehicle has to be detained in
the prescribed manner. (vide sub section (1) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.)
The term ''prescribed'' has been defined under sub-section 32 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as ''prescribed'' means by rules
made under this Act. The manner has been prescribed under Rule 421 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which reads follows:
421.(1) Any motor vehicle detained u/s 207 shall be handed-over to the police officer incharge of the nearest police station and such police officer
shall keep the vehicle under safe custody until such time such officer receives a release order from the authorised officer mentioned in sub-rule (2).
(2) The Regional Transport Officer in whose area the vehicle is detained shall be the authorised officer for the issue of an order of release under
subsection (2) of Section 207.
(3) The Officers to recover the penalty for causing obstruction to free flow of traffic u/s 201 shall be any police officer in uniform not below the
rank of Sub-Inspector of Police.
From the reading of the above Rule, one could understand that it speaks of the manner in which the vehicle is to be detained. As per the said
provision, it can be detained in a safe custody of the police officer in charge of the nearest police station. The Rule further states that such detention
can extend up to the time of passing an order under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the transport authority, namely,
the second respondent herein. But sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which empowers the transport authority to pass
order of release of the vehicle does not prescribe any time limit for such order. The said provision is also silent as to how to dispose of the vehicle,
if the vehicle is not claimed by its owner or if it is not released by the Transport Authority under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
The learned Additional Government Pleader is not in a position to say as to how the vehicle would be disposed of either by the police officer in
charge of the nearest police station or any other authority. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that he would bring the same
to the notice of the Government to bring in necessary amendment to the Rules, prescribing necessary time limit and also the manner of disposal of
the vehicle.
So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is not explained as to why the second respondent has not passed any order on the
request of the petitioner for release of the vehicle, it is probably because no time limit has been prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of
the Motor Vehicles Act. The second respondent has been under the impression that he can pass orders under this provision at his own whims and
fancies at any number of months time.
In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 17937 of 2013, directing the second respondent to pass
appropriate order under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
for release of the vehicle to the petitioner, if he satisfies all the legal requirements. This release of the vehicle is independent of any other action
which may be taken by the respondent against the petitioner for violation of the permit conditions. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of
2013 is closed.
It is also suggested to the Government to look into the above anomaly discussed herein above and to make suitable amendments to the Tamil
Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
In view of the order dated 05.11.2013, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 17937 of 2013, W.P.(MD) No. 16650 of 2013 is allowed directing the
second respondent to pass appropriate order under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, within two days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order for release of the vehicle to the petitioner, if he satisfies all the legal requirements. This release of the vehicle is
independent of any other action which may be taken by the respondent against the petitioner for violation of the permit conditions. No costs.
In view of the order dated 05.11.2013, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 17937 of 2013, W.P.(MD) No. 17684 of 2013 is allowed directing the
second respondent to pass appropriate order under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, within two days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order for release of the vehicle to the petitioner, if he satisfies all the legal requirements. This release of the vehicle is
independent of any other action which may be taken by the respondent against the petitioner for violation of the permit conditions. No costs.
In view of the order dated 05.11.2013, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 17937 of 2013, W.P.(MD) No. 17685 of 2013 is allowed directing the
second respondent to pass appropriate order under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, within two days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order for release of the vehicle to the petitioner, if he satisfies all the legal requirements. This release of the vehicle is
independent of any other action which may be taken by the respondent against the petitioner for violation of the permit conditions. No costs. In
view of the order dated 05.11.2013, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 17937 of 2013, W.P.(MD) No. 17689 of 2013 is allowed directing the second
respondent to pass appropriate order under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, within two days from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order for release of the vehicle to the petitioner, if he satisfies all the legal requirements. This release of the vehicle is independent of
any other action which may be taken by the respondent against the petitioner for violation of the permit conditions. No costs.