Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
J.C.Uma Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 December, 2019
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.18650 OF 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"to issue an order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Mandamus,
a) declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicles of the petitioners plying on the Interstate routes i.e. APO2TE0135, APO2TA5373, AP02TH4220, AP02TB6696, AP02TC3969, APO2TH4340, APO2TH4178, AP02TE2232, APO2TH4218, AP02TA7794, APO2TH4219, APO2TH4217, APO2TE0126, KA34A8874, KA34A0987, and KA01AK3929 belonging to the 1st petitioner and AP02TE2196, AP02TA3654, AP39X7699, AP02TA5769, and AP39X7599 belonging to the 2nd petitioner under concocted vehicle check reports dated 16.10.2019, 05.11.2019, 13.11.2019 and 14.11.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, Rules and malafide;
b) declare the action of the respondents in detaining the vehicles of the petitioners plying on the interstate routes without releasing them for the last several days in spite of the application made under Rule 448-B of AP Motor vehicles Rules 1989 with all the documents as illegal, improper, and unjust;
c) direct the respondents not to resort to seizing of the vehicles of the petitioners, plying on the Interstate routes henceforth, unless grave irregularities exists
d) declare that the petitioners are entitled for the damages for the loss of business and reputation, as determined by this Hon'ble Court and MSM,J WP_18650_2019 2 consequently direct the respondents to pay the said amount to the petitioners;
e) direct the respondents to refund the tax paid for the seized vehicles from the date of seizure till release of the vehicles in the interest of justice;
f) declare that the actions of the respondents are violative of petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India"
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are State and its officials, respondent Nos.5 to 16 are officials in their personal capacity.
Husband of petitioner No.1 was MLA of Tadipatri for the period 2014-2019 and the husband of petitioner No.2 contested for the MLA seat, Tadipatri during the last legislative assembly elections from Telugu Desam party and he narrowly lost the election. Brother-in- law of petitioner No.1 was Member of Parliament for the period 2014- 2019 and earlier he was MLA of Tadipatri and discharged his duties as a Minister.
Both the petitioners are residents of Tadipatri town of Anantapur District, and their family has been carrying on business in transport for the last several decades. As of now, petitioners possess 31 stage carriage permits and 20 contract carriage permits. The details of the said permits and other particulars are given in the table 1 and 2 hereunder.
MSM,J WP_18650_2019 3 TABLE 1: Permit Vehicles (Stage Carriages) owned by the petitioners 1 and 2 MSM,J WP_18650_2019 4 TABLE 2: Contract Carriers owned by Petitioner No.1 The official respondents in their official capacity at the behest of political persons in the present government, seized the vehicles on flimsy grounds and contrary to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and AP Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and detained the vehicles without releasing them, thereby infringed the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
It is specifically alleged in the affidavit filed along with the petition that since petitioner No.1's husband, son and brother-in-law belong to Telugu Desam party and supported the said party in the last elections, they are targeted by the political party in power. In the process of tarnishing family reputation of the petitioners, party in power, utilised the services of the officials, who are arrayed as respondents both in the official capacity and personal capacity, to deprive the petitioners transport business which has been carrying on since several decades, and for one reason or the other seized the vehicles without any reasonable ground. Indeed there are several bus operators, in the state, the respondents targeted the petitioners MSM,J WP_18650_2019 5 alone, seized and detained all the vehicles on flimsy grounds and petty reasons against the established law.
Respondent Nos.5 to 16, who are arrayed in their personal capacity being the officials of transport department, with malafide intention and for extraneous reasons at the behest of respondent Nos.1 to 5 conducted namesake inspections on the vehicles of petitioners and seized them showing petty reasons and detained with them. In fact, most of the vehicles were in halt at garages but seized by issuing concocted vehicle check reports, as if they were plying during check time. The details of them are as stated below in TABLE 3 and 4.
TABLE 3 : Details of the vehicles seized belonging to petitioner No.1.
DATE OF Name of the S.No BUS No. INSPECTIO ROUTE PERMIT No. Owner N ANATHPURAM TO 26/50(A) 1 AP02TE0135 J.C UMA REDDY 16.10.2019 BELLARY ANNANTHAPURAM 53/50(B) 2 AP02TA5373 J.C UMA REDDY 16.10.2019 TO HIRIYURU ANATHPURAM TO 3 AP02TH4220 J.C UMA REDDY 16.10.2019 BANGLORE 17/61(B) 4 AP02TC3969 J.C UMA REDDY 16.10.2019 SPARE BUS 1/2007 2/SPAREBUS/STA 5 AP02TH4340 J.C UMA REDDY 16.10.2019 SPARE BUS /2015 ANANTHAPURAM TO BELLARY AP02TE2232 J.C UMA REDDY 05.11.2019 39/50 BANGLORE TO 7 ANANTHPURAM AP02TH4218 J.C UMA REDDY 05.11.2019 11/61(A) ANANTHPURAM 8 TO BELLARY AP02TA7794 J.C UMA REDDY 13.11.2019 26/50(B) GOOTY TO 9 BELLARY AP02TH4219 J.C UMA REDDY 14.11.2019 17/61 ANANTHPURAM 10 TO SIRA AP02TH4217 J.C UMA REDDY 14.11.2019 11/61(B) BELLARY TO 11 ANANTHAPURAM AP02TE0126 J.C UMA REDDY 14.11.2019 18/58(B) BELLARY TO 12 GUNTAKAL KA34A8874 J.C.UMA REDDY 16.10.2019 128/57-58 BELLARY TO 13 GUNTAKAL KA34A0987 J.C.UMA REDDY 16.10.2019 129/57-58 BELLARY TO 14 GUNTAKAL KA01AK3929 J.C.UMA REDDY 16.10.2019 02/1991-92 MSM,J WP_18650_2019 6 TABLE 4: Details of the vehicles seized belonging to petitioner No.2 Name of the DATE OF PERMIT S.No BUS No. ROUTE Owner INSPECTION No. 03/SPARE J.C NIKHILA 1 AP02TE2196 16.10.2019 SPARE BUS BUS/STA/ REDDY 2015 01/SPARE J.C NIKHILA 2 AP02TB6696 16.10.2019 SPARE BUS BUS/STA/ REDDY 2015 J.C NIKHILA GOOTY TO 3 AP02TA3654 REDDY 05.11.2019 BELLARY 4/65 J.C NIKHILA BESTHARAPALLY 4 AP39X7699 REDDY 05.11.2019 - ATP 53/50(A) J.C NIKHILA BELLARY TO 5 AP02TA5769 REDDY 13.11.2019 ANNANTHPURAM 18/58(A) J.C NIKHILA 6 AP39X7599 REDDY 13.11.2019 SPARE BUS 53/50 In furtherance to the said intended and malafide checks by respondent Nos.5 to 17, vehicles of petitioners have been illegally detained and seized, though seizure of vehicles for such alleged petty irregularities were not permitted under law and that the reasons invented for the purpose of seizing the vehicles and deprive the petitioners from operation of vehicles for the sin of their family members supporting Telugu Desam party and that they were terrorized by the respondents during check period and advised them to be calm, or else, they would be arrested immediately. It is specifically contended that the seizure of the vehicle is totally in contravention of proviso to clause (1) of Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the M.V.Act") and proviso to clause (1) of Section 207 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, the alleged seizure and detention of the vehicles shown in table Nos.1 and 2 (referred above) is a grave illegality committed by respondent Nos.5 to 16.
Though Rule 217 of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules permits compounding of those violations, respondents did not allow the petitioners to pay compounding fee, which is permissible under law, MSM,J WP_18650_2019 7 at the instance of their higher officials and to deprive the petitioners from operating the vehicles, which is contrary to the Division Bench Judgment in "Saleem Tours and Travels v. Joint Commissioner and Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad1" and "Meerja Hameedullah Baig v. Regional Transport Authority, South Zone, Hyderabad2", as such the very seizure and detention for petty reasons by the official respondent Nos.1 to 4 and respondent Nos.5 to 16, who are impleaded in their personal capacity being the officials of the transport department, is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgments referred supra.
It is also further contended that the petitioners made appropriate application under Rule 448-A and 448-B of the M.V.Rules, for release of the vehicles long back, but the officials did not pass any order exercising power under Rule 448 -B of the M.V.Rules. Therefore, malafide action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 is questioned in this petition and sought a direction for release of the vehicles, as the action of the respondents is unethical, condemnable and beyond their official capacity. Therefore, such over action of the officials at the behest of the political party in power is highly deprecable and requested to issue a direction as sought for as the action of the respondents infringed the right of the petitioners to carryon transport business guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
Respondents did not file any counter at the stage of admission, but requested this Court to dispose of the petition upon hearing arguments of both counsel. In view of the request made by respondent Nos.1 to 4, this Court heard arguments of learned Senior 1 2000 (4) ALD 501 (DB) 2 2001 (4) ALT 215 MSM,J WP_18650_2019 8 Counsel Sri Gangaiah Naidu, appearing for the petitioners and Special Government Pleader Sri Kasa Jagamohan Reddy for the State at length.
The main endeavour of the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the very seizure of the vehicles shown in table Nos.1 and 2 is a serious illegality committed by respondent Nos.1 to 16 in discharging their duties at the behest of political party in power. When specific provision under Section 86 of the M.V.Act mandates a notice calling for explanation before detention and seizure of the vehicles by the respondents, but no such notice was issued prior to seizure of the vehicles. As such, the act of respondent Nos.1 to 4 is highly arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in "Saleem Tours and Travels v. Joint Commissioner and Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad" and "Meerja Hameedullah Baig v. Joint Transport Commissioner" (referred supra) and requested this Court to declare the detention and seizure of the vehicles of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicles forthwith, besides granting other reliefs.
It is also further contended that non-disposal of applications filed by the petitioners for release of the vehicles under Rule 448-B of the M.V.Rules and keeping them pending with the official respondents for days together, depriving the petitioners from operating vehicles is a serious dent to the business of the petitioners and deprived the petitioners to enjoy the income from the business, which is violative of Articled 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to release the vehicles forthwith. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on "C.S.S.Motor Service, MSM,J WP_18650_2019 9 Tenkasi v. State of Madras3" "Saghir Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh4" "Raman and Raman Limited v. The State of Madras5"
"Saleem Tours and Travels v. Joint Commissioner and Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad" and "Meerja Hameedullah Baig v. Joint Transport Commissioner" (referred supra) Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, Special Government Pleader for State, vehemently contended that the applications submitted by the petitioners after complying with necessary formalities like payment of Rs.25/- as required under Rule 448-A of the A.P.M.V.Rules were disposed, orders have been passed and copies of the orders are placed on record. On 18.11.2019 Regional Transport Officer, DTC Office, Anantapuramu, passed orders for vehicle Nos.AP02TH4218, AP02TE2232, AP39X7699, AP02TH4178, AP02TA5769, AP39X7599, AP02TH4217, AP02TE2214, AP02TH4219, AP02TA3627, AP02TA3654, AP39U3654, AP02TA7794, AP02TB0216 and AP02TE0126. On 22.11.2019 Regional Transport Officer, Office of DTC, Ananthapuramu for the vehicle Nos.KA34A8874, AP02TC3969, AP02TE2196, AP02TE0135, KA34A0987, AP02TA5373, KA01AK3929, AP02TH4340, AP02TB6696 and AP02TH4220.
When the applications filed under Rule 448-A of M.V.Rules rejected by exercising power under Rule 448-B of M.V.Rules, the remedy open to the petitioners is to prefer an appeal as per the Rules or challenge the same independently in a separate petition, thereby this Court cannot order release of the vehicles in the present petition in view of the limited prayer in the petition. He also further contended that there is no irregularity in detention and seizure of the vehicles shown in Tables 1 and 2 and malafides attributed to the 3 1953 ILR (Mad) 304 4 AIR 1954 SC 728 5 AIR 1959 SC 694 MSM,J WP_18650_2019 10 respondents are baseless and without any material, consequently, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are:
(1) Whether the seizure and detention of vehicles shown in table Nos.1 and 2 is in accordance with law? If not, the said detention and seizure is liable to be annulled/set aside?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for consequential relief of release of vehicles, in the event of declaring the seizure and detention of the vehicles as illegal? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for release of vehicles under Rule 448-A and 448-B of the M.V.Rules framed under the M.V.Act?
P O I N T Nos.1 and 2:
Admittedly, petitioners possess all permits for contract carriage and stage carriage as shown in the tables, but the vehicles shown in tables 1 and 2 mentioned above, and the detention and seizure of the vehicles is also not in dispute.
The main grievance of the petitioners is that seizure and detention of the vehicles exercising power under Section 86 of the M.V.Act without following the proviso thereunder is a grave illegality committed by the petitioners.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a complete code, which deals with grant of permits, claims etc. Section 86 deals with cancellation and suspension of permits and the same is extracted hereunder.
MSM,J WP_18650_2019 11 Section 86 : CANCELLATION AND SUSPENSION OF PERMITS "1) The transport authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit--
(a) On the breach of any condition specified in section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit, or
(b) If the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit, or
(c) If the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the permit, or
(d) If the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by fraud or misrepresentation, or
(e) If the holder of the goods carriage permit, fails without reasonable cause, to use the vehicle for the purposes for which the permit was granted, or
(f) If the holder of the permit acquires the citizenship of any foreign country:
Provided that no permit shall be suspended or cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation.
(2) The transport authority may exercise the powers conferred on it under sub-section (1) in relation to a permit granted by any authority or person to whom power in this behalf has been delegated under sub-section (5) of section 68 as if the said permit was a permit granted by the transport authority.
(3) Where a transport authority cancels or suspends a permit, it shall give to the holder in writing its reasons for the action taken. (4) The powers exercisable under sub-section (1) (other than the power to cancel a permit) by the transport authority which granted the permit may be exercised by any authority or person to whom such powers have been delegated under sub-section (5) of section 68. (5) Where a permit is liable to be cancelled or suspended under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (e) of sub-section (1) and the transport authority is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case, it would not be necessary or expedient so to cancel or suspend the permit if the holder of the permit agrees to pay a certain sum of money, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the transport authority may, instead of cancelling or suspending the permit, as the case may be, recover from the holder of the permit the sum of money agreed upon. (6) The powers exercisable by the transport authority under sub-
section (5) may, where an appeal has been preferred under section 89, be exercised also by the appellate authority. (7) In relation to a permit referred to in sub-section (9) of section 88, the powers exercisable under sub-section (1) (other than the power to cancel a permit) by the transport authority which granted the permit, may be exercised by any transport authority and any authority or persons to whom power in this behalf has been delegated under sub-section (5) of section 68, as if the said permit was a permit granted by any such authority or persons."
MSM,J WP_18650_2019 12 Learned counsel for the petitioners took advantage of proviso to Section 86 of the M.V.Act, which mandates affording of an opportunity to the holder of the permit to furnish his/her explanation before passing such order of cancellation or suspension of permit.
A bare look at Section 86 (1) of the M.V.Act, permit can be cancelled or suspended on the breach of any condition specified in section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit, or if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit, or if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the permit, or if the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by fraud or misrepresentation, or if the holder of the goods carriage permit, fails without reasonable cause, to use the vehicle for the purposes for which the permit was granted, or if the holder of the permit acquires the citizenship of any foreign country.
Therefore, in view of the circumstances enumerated under sub-Section (1) of Section 86 of the M.V.Act for cancellation or suspension, an opportunity has to be given to the holder of the permit enabling him/her to furnish explanation. But in the present facts of the case, respondents pointed out certain violations, which are shown in the vehicle check report of each vehicle.
It is alleged that the petitioners are guilty of several violations shown in the check reports and prescribed compounding fee in the check report itself.
Whether such violations permit seizure and detention of vehicles is a question to be determined at this stage. According to Section 207 of the M.V.Act, any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has MSM,J WP_18650_2019 13 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. 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 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. Thus, power is conferred on the authorised person or any police officer to detain or seize the vehicle if they found that the owner of the vehicle contravened Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the M.V.Act.
In view of the confirmation of power on the authorities specified in Section 207 of the M.V.Act, it is necessary to advert to the other provisions referred therein.
MSM,J WP_18650_2019 14 According to Section 3 of the M.V.Act, no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
The word "effective" means a valid licence regarding the period and type of vehicle as held in "Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Company6"
Thus, it is clear from Section 3 of the M.V.Act that unless a person possessed effective driving license to drive particular vehicle as on the date of such driving vehicle, it is a contravention and give raise to detention and seizure of the vehicle.
Section 4 of the M.V.Act prescribed the age limit for driving a motor vehicle. Section 4 of the M.V.Act is as follows:
"4. Age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles.-- (1) No person under the age of eighteen years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place:
Provided that 1[a motor cycle with engine capacity not exceeding 50cc] may be driven in a public place by a person after attaining the age of sixteen years.
(2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place.
(3) No learner's licence or driving licence shall be issued to any person to drive a vehicle of the class to which he has made an application unless he is eligible to drive that class of vehicle under this section."
As per Section 39 of the M.V.Act, registration of vehicle is compulsory and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place 6 AIR 1999 SC 3181 MSM,J WP_18650_2019 15 unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with Chapter IV of the M.V.Act.
Sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the M.V.Act, reads thus:
"66. 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 authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:
Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage:
Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not:
Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him."
Thus, Section 66 of the M.V.Act makes it clear that the owner cannot ply the vehicle without permit or off the route even if it is not actually carrying any passenger. Where seizure of vehicle was for non-payment of tax and the tax was levied in accordance with law such action cannot be interfered with in the jurisdiction as held in "Mukesh Kumar v. State of M.P.7" Therefore, in view of the power conferred under Section 207 of the M.V.Act on the officers specified therein, this Court has to examine whether the petitioners violated any of the conditions specified in various sections referred above, based on vehicle check report.
7 AIR 2000 MP 50 MSM,J WP_18650_2019 16 Vehicle bearing No.KA 01 AK 3929 was checked on 16.10.2019 and found various violations as per check report.
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
VECHILE CHECK REPORT
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP202/OCT2019/027554
Date & Time 16-10-2019 19:17
Place BELLARY ROAD
Registration No. KA01AK3929
TSVAS/UNIT OFFICE
Issued By GUNTAKAL/MVI
Name and Address M/S DIWAKAR ROAD LINES
#24 ANANT ARCA COMPLEX
AV ROAD KALASIPALVAM-
560002,
DRIVER NAME A GANGDHAR
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Without PUC 2000
2. Without Permit/Violation 5000
3. Without Payment Tax 5000
4. Using multi tonned horn violation U/R 119 1000 5. No side particulars 100 6. No Fire Existingular 100 7. No First Aid box 100 8. No Conductor Licence 100
9. Not producing Dl and RC/with out document 100 Tax : 6490 * Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 13619 The violation shown in serial No.1 is not a violation. Violation of serial No.2 i.e. plying vehicle without permission and it is a violation covered by sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the M.V.Act, but obtained permit No.02/1991-92, when the petitioners asserted that vehicle is having valid permit and not denied by filing counter is suffice to accept the contention of the petitioners, which is un- rebutted. Hence, detention and seizure is illegal. violation No.3 is non-payment of tax. Other violations i.e. using multi tonned horn, no side particulars, no fire extinguisher, no first aid box, no conductor MSM,J WP_18650_2019 17 license and not produced Driving license and registration certificate do not fall within ambit of Section 207 of the M.V.Act.
Check report of vehicle bearing No.KA 34A0987 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS VCR NUMBER AP202/OCT2019/027535 Date & Time 16-10-2019 18:48 Place 20:441 BELLARY ROAD Registration No. KA34A0987 SIVA/UNIT OFFICE Issued By GUNTAKAL /MVI Name and Address J.C.UMA REDDY R/O DIWAKAR TRAVELS AMBEDKAR COMPLEX BESIDE KSRTC OLD BUS STAND BELLARY, WEF 30/09/2014 999999, KARNATAKA DRIVER NAME OFFENCE DETAILS
1. NOT PRODUCING DL and RC with out documents 100 2. No. Fire Extinguisher 100 3. No First Aid Box 100 4. No Conductor Licence 100
5. Without PUC 2000 6. Using multi tonned horn Violation U/R 119 1000
7. Without Permit/Violation 5000 * Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 8400 Violations 1 to 6 are not within the ambit of Section 207 of the M.V.Act, violation No.7 plying vehicle without permit is a ground to detain and seize the vehicle by exercising power under Section 207 of the M.V.Act, but the vehicle is holding permit No.129/57-58.
Consequently, detention and seizure of vehicle is illegal.
Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP 02 TE 2196 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS VCR NUMBER AP102/OCT2019/027504 Date & Time 10/16/2019 18:46:10 PM Place Anantapur Sub District Registration No. AP02TE2196 DSMVP/RTA Issued By ANANTAPUR/MVI MSM,J WP_18650_2019 18 NIKHILA REDDY JUTURU Name and Address CHINNA 15-1256 ,SANJEEV NAGAR TADIPATRI, ANANTAPUR ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME KULLAYAPPA Y
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Over loading Passengers 1000
2. Not producing Dl and RC/with out
document 100
Tax : 10660
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 1100
The violations complained for seizure of vehicle bearing No.AP 02TE 2196 are only overloading of passengers and non production of Driving license, but none of these violations do not fall within the ambit of Section 207 of the M.V.Act. Though non production of driving licence and registration certificate is a violation, Section 3 of the M.V.Act prohibits driving of vehicle without driving license, similarly Section 39 prohibits plying of vehicle in public place without registration. But here, violation complained is that the driver did not produce driving license and registration certificate, but these two violations do not fall within the ambit of Section 3 or Section 39 of the M.V.Act to exercise power under Section 207 of the M.V.Act to detain and seize the vehicle. If it is the case of the respondents that the driver did not possess license to drive the vehicle bearing No.AP 02TE 2196 and that the same was not registered, then the respondents are entitled to exercise power under Section 207 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, seizure of vehicle bearing No.AP 02TE 2196 for the above two violations is illegal and arbitrary exercise of power, obviously for different reasons. Therefore, detention and seizure of vehicle bearing No.AP02TE 2196 by the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the vehicle bearing No.AP02TE2196 shall be released forthwith.
MSM,J WP_18650_2019 19 Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP 02 TA 5373 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS VCR NUMBER AP102/OCT2019/027686 Date & Time 16-10-2019 21:13 Anantapur Kalyandurg Place Road Registration No. AP02TA5373 Issued By JUTURU CHINNA UMA Name and Address REDDY 15-311 ,SANJEEV NAGAR TADIPATRI, ANANTAPUR ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME SIVA G
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Not producing Dl and RC/with out
document 100
Tax :14290
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 100
Non production of Driving license and registration certificate is not a violation under Section 207 of the M.V.Act, hence, the seizure and detention of vehicle bearing No.AP 02 TA 5373 by the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the vehicle bearing No.AP02TA5373 shall be released forthwith.
Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP 02 TE 0135 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP102/OCT2019/027565
Date & Time 16-10-2019 19:30
Place Anantapur Bellary Road
Registration No. AP02TE0135
BDNAIDU/RTA
Issued By ANANTAPUR/MVI
JUTURU CHINNA UMA
Name and Address REDDY
15-1256 ,SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI,
ANANTAPUR
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. No Conductor licence 100
2. Not producing Dl and RC/with out
document 100
Tax : 17070
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 200
MSM,J
WP_18650_2019
20
Non production of Driving license, registration certificate and conductor license is not a violation under Section 207 of the M.V.Act, hence, the seizure and detention of vehicle bearing No. AP 02 TE 0135 by the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the vehicle bearing No.AP 02 TE 0135 shall be released forthwith.
Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP 02 TH 4220 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP102/OCT2019/027669
Date & Time 16-10-2019 20:31
Place PENUKONDA
Registration No. AP02TH4220
SRAMESH/RTA
Issued By HINDUPUR/MVI
CHINNA UMA REDDY
Name and Address JUTURU
15/1256,
SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME S MAHABOOB
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Over loading Passengers 1200
2. Seating alternation 5000
3. No conductor licence 100
4. Without Permit/Violation 5000
Tax : 19450
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 11300
Violation No.4 i.e. plying vehicle without permit is a violation under Section 66 (1) of the M.V.Act, but un-rebutted allegation is sufficient to accept that the vehicle is having permit No.17/61(B). Hence, detention and seizure is not legal.
MSM,J WP_18650_2019 21 Check report of vehicle bearing No. AP02TC3969 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP102/OCT2019/027519
Date & Time 16-10-2019 19:03
Place VADEPALLI
Registration No. AP02TC3969
ATIKA/RTA
Issued By ANANTAPUR/MVI
JUTURU CHINNA UMA
Name and Address REDDY
15-1256 ,SANJEEV
NAGAR
TADIPATRI,
ANANTAPUR
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME NABI RASOOL M
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Not producing Dl and RC/with out
document 100
2. Over loading Passengers 1700
Tax : 18660
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 1800
The violations complained for seizure of vehicle bearing No. AP02TC3969 are only for overloading of passengers and non production of Driving license, but none of these violations do not fall within the ambit of Section 207 of the M.V.Act. Though non production of driving licence and registration certificate is a violation, Section 3 of the M.V.Act prohibits driving of vehicle without driving license, similarly Section 39 prohibits plying of vehicle in public place without registration. But here, violation complained is that the driver did not produce driving license and registration certificate, but these two violations do not fall within the ambit of Section 3 or Section 39 of the M.V.Act to exercise power under Section 207 of the M.V.Act to detain and seize the vehicle. Therefore, the seizure of vehicle bearing No. AP02TC3969 for the above two violations is an illegal and arbitrary exercise of power, obviously for different reasons. Therefore, the detention and seizure of vehicle bearing No. MSM,J WP_18650_2019 22 AP02TC3969 by the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the vehicle bearing No. AP02TC3969 shall be released forthwith.
Check report of vehicle bearing No. KA34A8874 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP421/OCT2019/027606
Date & Time 16-10-2019 20:10
Place 515842
Registration No. KA34A8874
Issued By SIVA/MVI OFFICE
Name and Address J C UMA REDDY
R/O DIWAKAR TRAVELS
AMBEDKAR COMPLEX
BESIDE KSRTC OLD BUS STAND
BELLARY, WEF 30/09/2014
999999, KARNATAKA
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. NOT PRODUCING DL and RC with out documents 100
2. Without PUC 2000
3. Without Payment of Tax 5000
4. Using multi toned horn, violation 119
1000
5. No side Particulars 100
6. No. Fire Exitinguslars 100
7. No First Aid Box 100
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 8400
None of the violations shown in the check report of vehicle bearing No. KA34A8874 do not fall within the ambit of Section 207 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, the detention and seizure of vehicle bearing No. KA34A8874 by the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the vehicle bearing No.KA34A8874 shall be released forthwith.
MSM,J WP_18650_2019 23 Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP02TH4340 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP102/OCT2019/031383
Date & Time 18-10-2019 14:06
Place 515301
Registration No. AP02TH4340
KODIDINJI/RTA
Issued By HINDUPUR/MVI
Name and Address UMA REDDY JUTUR
15-1256 ,SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI,
ANANTAPUR
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME JAYA NAIDU
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Seating alternation 5000
2. Without Insurance Certificate 3000
3. Without F.C. 5000
4. Without PUC 2000
5. No Conductor License 100
Tax : 13800
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 15100
None of the violations shown in the check report of vehicle bearing No. AP02TH4340 do not fall within the ambit of Section 207 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, the detention and seizure of vehicle bearing No. AP02TH4340 by the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the vehicle bearing No. AP02TH4340 shall be released forthwith.
Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP02TB6696 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP102/OCT2019/031340
Date & Time 18-10-2019 13:31
Place 515301
Registration No. AP02TB6696
KODIDINJI/RTA
Issued By HINDUPUR/MVI
Name and Address UMA REDDY JUTUR
15-317 ,SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI,
ANANTAPUR
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
MSM,J
WP_18650_2019
24
DRIVER NAME
SURENDRA BABU V
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Without Permit/Violation 5000
2. Without Payment of Tax 5000
3. Seating Alternation 5000
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 15000
Violation No.1 shown in the above table i.e. plying vehicle without permit is a violation under Section 66 (1) of the M.V.Act, but in view of un-rebutted allegation of the petitioner, the vehicle is having permit No.01/SPARE BUS/STA/2015. Hence, the detention and seizure of vehicle is illegal.
Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP02TH4218 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP002/NOV2019/008581
Date & Time 05-11-2019 06:19
Place BANDAMEEDAPALLI
Registration No. AP02TH4218
ATIKA/RTA
Issued By ANANTAPUR/MVI
UMA REDDY JUTURU
Name and Address CHINNA
15/1256,
SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME SURESH BABU A
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. No DL and Driving With out licence 5000
2. Without Permit Violation 5000
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 10000
Violation No.2 shown in the above table i.e. plying vehicle without permit is a violation under Section 66 (1) of the M.V.Act. Violation No.1 shown in the above table i.e. driving vehicle without driving license is a violation under Section 3 of the M.V.Act. But the unrebutted assertion in the affidavit would show that the vehicle possessed permit No.11/61 (A), whereas driving vehicle without MSM,J WP_18650_2019 25 license may be compounded. Therefore, the detention and seizure of the vehicle bearing No.AP02TH4218 can be held to be arbitrary and illegal.
Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP02TH4178 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP002/NOV2019/008554
Date & Time 05-11-2019 05:59
Place 515722
Registration No. AP02TH4178
Issued By BSHR/RTA ANANTAPUR/MVI
Name and Address UMA REDDY JUTURU CHINNA
15/1256,
SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI
ANDHRA PRADESH - 515411
DRIVER NAME GIRISH
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. No DL and Driving With out licence 5000
2. Without Permit/ Violation 5000
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 10000
Violation No.2 shown in the above table i.e. plying vehicle without permit is a violation under Section 66 (1) of the M.V.Act, but the vehicle is holding permit No.27/91 (Spare Bus). Hence, the detention and seizure of vehicle on this ground is illegal. Violation No.1 shown in the above table i.e. driving vehicle without driving license is a violation under Section 3 of the M.V.Act, but compoundable. Therefore, the seizure of the vehicle bearing No.AP02TH4178 can be held to be arbitrary and illegal.
Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP02TE2232 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP002/NOV2019/008559
Date & Time 05-11-2019 05:03
ANANTAPUR BELLARY
Place ROAD
Registration No. AP02TE2232
Issued By DSMVP/RTA
ANANTAPUR/MVI
MSM,J
WP_18650_2019
26
JUTURU CHINNA UMA
Name and Address REDDY
15/1256,
SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME K SHERMAS VALI
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Not Producing DL and RC/ With out
document 100
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 100
Non production of Driving license and registration certificate is not a violation under Section 207 of the M.V.Act, hence, the seizure and detention of vehicle bearing No. AP02TE2232 by the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the vehicle bearing No.AP02TE2232 shall be released forthwith.
Check report of vehicle bearing No. AP02TA3654 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP007/NOV2019/039370
Date & Time 16/11/2019 13:59
Place SH-26
Registration No. AP02TA3654
MANDLA/RTA
Issued By GUNTUR/MVI
Name and Address NIKHILA REDDY JUTURU
15/1256,
SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME M.KRISHNA
OFFENCE DETAILS
1.Without Permit Violation 5000
2.No Fire Extinguisher 100
3.No First Aid Box 100
4. Over Loading Passengers 2000
5. No Conductor License 100
6.Without Insurance Certificate 3000
Compounding Fee to be paid is Rs. 10300
MSM,J
WP_18650_2019
27
Violation No.1 shown in the above table i.e. plying vehicle without permit is a violation under Section 66 (1) of the M.V.Act, but un-rebutted allegation establishes that the vehicle possessed permit No.4/65. Hence, the detention and seizure are illegal.
Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP39X7699 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP002/NOV2019/029308
Date & Time 13-11-2019 16:13
Ananthapur Kalyandurg
Place Road
Registration No. AP39X7699
BSHR/RTA
ANANTAPUR/MVI
Issued By
NIKHILA REDDY JUTURU
Name and Address CHINNA
15/1256,
SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME RAJU KOLLA
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Without Payment of Tax 5000
2. Without Permit/ Violation 5000
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 10000
Violation No.2 shown in the above table i.e. plying vehicle without permit is a violation under Section 66 (1) of the M.V.Act, but un-rebutted allegation establishes that the vehicle possessed permit No.53/50(A). Hence, the detention and seizure are illegal.
Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP02TA7794 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP002/NOV2019/029907
Date & Time 13-11-2019 18:06
ANANTAPURAMU BELLARY
Place
ROAD
Registration No. AP02TA7794
Issued By BDNAIDU/RTA
ANANTAPUR/MVI
MSM,J
WP_18650_2019
28
UMA REDDY JUTURU
Name and Address
CHINNA
15/1256,
SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME KHALEEL M
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Without Permit/ Violation 5000
2. Over loading Passengers 1000
3. Not producing DL and RC /With out
100
document
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 6100
Violation No.1 shown in the above table i.e. plying vehicle without permit is a violation under Section 66 (1) of the M.V.Act. However, un-rebutted allegation would show that the vehicle possessed permit No.26/50(B). Consequently, the detention and seizure are illegal.
Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP02TH4219 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP002/NOV2019/030631
Date & Time 14-11-2019 05:49
Place RAPTHADU
Registration No. AP02TH4219
ATIKA/RTA
Issued By
ANANTAPUR/MVI
CHINNA UMA REDDY
Name and Address
JUTURU
15/1256,
SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME RAGHAVENDRA K T
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Not producing DL and RC/ Without
100
document
2. Without Permit/Violation 5000
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 5100
MSM,J
WP_18650_2019
29
Violation No.1 shown in the above table i.e. plying vehicle without permit is a violation under Section 66 (1) of the M.V.Act. However, the un-rebutted allegations in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition would show that the vehicle possessed permit No.17/61. Consequently, the detention and seizure are invalid.
Check report of vehicle bearing No. AP02TH4217 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP002/NOV2019/031689
Date & Time 14-11-2019 10:31
Place 515124
Registration No. AP02TH4217
Issued By
KODIDINI/RTA
HINDUPUR/MVI
UMA REDDY JUTURU
Name and Address
CHINNA
15/1256,
SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME S JEELAN BASHA
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. GVR Not maintained 100
2. Seating alternation 5000
3. Carrying General Merchandise 2000
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 7100
None of the violations shown in the check report of vehicle bearing No.AP02TH4217 do not fall within the ambit of Section 207 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, the seizure and detention of vehicle bearing No. AP02TH4217 by the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the vehicle bearing No. AP02TH4217 shall be released forthwith.
MSM,J WP_18650_2019 30 Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP02TE0126 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP002/NOV2019/033459
Date & Time 14-11-2019 18:33
Place 515001
AP02TE0126
Registration No.
MDIK/RTA
Issued By
ANANTAPUR/MVI
JUTURU CHINNA UMA
Name and Address
REDDY
15/1256,
SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME Y CHOWDAPPA
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Not producing DL and RC/ With out
100
document
2. Without FC 5000
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 5100
None of the violations shown in the check report of vehicle bearing No.AP02TE0126 do not fall within the ambit of Section 207 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, the seizure and detention of vehicle bearing No.AP02TE0126 by the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the vehicle bearing No.AP02TE0126 shall be released forthwith.
Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP02TA5769 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP002/NOV2019/029185
Date & Time 13-11-2019 16:09
Place NANDAMU NAGAR
Registration No. AP02TA5769
PNPS/RTA
Issued By
ANANTAPUR/MVI
NIKHILA REDDY JUTURU
Name and Address
CHINNA
15/1256,
SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
K. RAMANJINEYULU
DRIVER NAME
MSM,J
WP_18650_2019
31
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Without puc 2000
2. No Conductor Licence 100
3. Over loading Passengers 1000
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 3100
None of the violations shown in the check report of vehicle bearing No.AP02TA5769 do not fall within the ambit of Section 207 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, the seizure and detention of vehicle bearing No. AP02TA5769 by the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the vehicle bearing No. AP02TA5769 shall be released forthwith.
Check report of vehicle bearing No.AP39X7599 is as follows:
PERSONAL DETAILS
VCR NUMBER AP002/NOV2019/008605
Date & Time 05-11-2019 06:32
Place Anantapur Sub District
Registration No. AP39X7599
BVPRASAD/CHECKPOST
Issued By PENUKONDA
NIKHILA REDDY
Name and Address JUTURU CHINNA
15/1256,
SANJEEV NAGAR
TADIPATRI
ANDHRA PRADESH -
515411
DRIVER NAME MALLIKARJUNA N
OFFENCE DETAILS
1. Not Producing DL and RC/ Without
document 100
2. Over loading Passengers 1500
* Compounding Fee to be Paid is Rs 1600
None of the violations shown in the check report of vehicle bearing No.AP39X7599 do not fall within the ambit of Section 207 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, the seizure and detention of vehicle bearing No.AP39X7599 by the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the vehicle bearing No.AP39X7599 shall be released forthwith.
MSM,J WP_18650_2019 32 As discussed above, respondents complained certain violations in plying vehicles shown in table Nos.1 and 2 and some of the violations complained by the respondents would fall within Section 207 of the M.V.Act and some of the violations are not fall within Section 207 of the M.V.Act to detain and seize the vehicles.
Therefore, I find that the seizure and detention of the vehicle bearing No. AP02TE2196, AP02TA5373, AP 02 TE 0135, AP02TC3969, KA34A8874, AP02TH4340, AP02TE2232, AP02TH4217, AP02TE0126, AP02TA5769, AP39X7599 is invalid, thereby they shall be released forthwith.
As per vehicle check reports, there is no permit to ply for vehicle/bus bearing Nos. KA 01AK 3929, KA34A0987, AP02TH4220, AP02TB6696, AP02TH4218, AP02TH4178, AP02TA3654, AP39X7699, AP02TA7794, AP02TH4219 but the learned counsel for the petitioners furnished details of permits and its validity including payment of tax etc. to the Government for the quarter ending 31.12.2019. Despite holding permits, payment of tax complying with all the requirements, the authorities under Section 207 of the M.V.Act detained and seized the vehicles even without examining any material. However, authorities have no power to confiscate the buses to the State though they are detained and seized on account of violation. At best, the State is entitled to collect compounding fee prescribed in the check reports ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.13,000/- for different violations. If the bus is detained, seized and kept in open place exposing to the rain and sun, the bus will become derelict within few days and the loss being sustained by the owner of the bus cannot be compensated on account of exposure to sun and rain, certainly, the glow of the bus will be faded and it will reduce the income of the petitioner in future. The Apex Court, time and again, MSM,J WP_18650_2019 33 held that carrying transport business is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and the same is the contention before this Court urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In "Raman and Raman Limited v. The State of Madras" (referred supra) the Apex Court held that it would be convenient at this stage, before entering into the controversial question, to state briefly some of the well-established principles relevant to the question raised : (i) A citizen has a fundamental right to ply motor vehicles on public pathways under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and any infringement of that right by the State can be justified only if it falls within the scope of Art. 19(6) thereof. (See:
"C.S.S. Motor Service, Tenkasi v. The State of Madras" (referred supra) and "Saghir Ahmad v. The State of U.P." (referred supra) In "Meerja Hameedullah Baig v. Regional Transport Authority, South Zone, Hyderabad" (referred supra) the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows:
"25. In "Saleem Tours and Travels v. Joint Commissioner and Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad", a Divisions Bench of this Court held that though seizure of vehicles under Section 207 of the Act for breach of conditions of permit is permissible, such seized vehicles, however, should not be detained for unduly long time till completion of enquiry and determination of tax payable and laid down certain guidelines for the release of the seized vehicles.
26. We must also bear in mind that in the said Act there doesn't exist a provision for confiscation. Detention of the vehicle is meant under the Act to be for a temporary period only.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to various loopholes in the producer adopted by the authorities in seizing vehicles and suggested that this Court may frame certain guidelines in relation thereto. We would not like to go into the aforementioned question, as no contention in that regard has been raised before us. We may, however, notice that a Division Bench of this Court in G. Nagaraju's case referring to an earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in P. Ravindranath Reddy v. Government of A.P., 1993(1) ALT 589 , observed: "Section 207(1) empowers the authorised officer to seize and detain the vehicle in the prescribed manner if he has reason to believe that there were MSM,J WP_18650_2019 34 certain contraventions as envisaged in the section. When rule making power is vested with the State Government to prescribe the procedure for seizure and detention, as a corollary, thereto, it can be said that the rule making power can also extend to the procedure for release of the vehicle. Release is integrally and inextricably connected with seizure and detention, more especially with detention. The power to seize and detain necessarily takes within its fold the ancillary or complementary power to release the vehicle under detention. The provisions dealing with seizure, detention and release have such a close nexus that they should be regarded as constituting a single Code. Hence, the power to make a rule prescribing the steps and formalities to be gone through for the release of the vehicle can be said to be comprehended within the expression "prescribed manner" immediately following the expression "seize and detain". Thus even in the absence of a provisions like Section 207(2) the same provision could have been introduced by means of a rule by Central or State Government in regard to the release of the vehicle seized and detained. The substantive power to make a rule thus being spelt out from Section 207(1) itself, the same rule can also provide for levy of fee by virtue of the provision contained in Section 211."
It was further observed:
"We fail to see how the impugned rule goes beyond the scope of the Act in nominating the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to receive and dispose of the applications for the release of the vehicles seized. Section 207(2) empowers the authorised officer to entertain such applications. Section 207(2) speaks of the "transport authority" or 'any officer' authorised in this behalf by the State Government. The State Government has specified the Secretary, RTA as the competent authority, by framing impugned Rule. It is not necessary that the authorised officer should be specified by means of a notification only. It does not make material difference whether the power is conferred by means of a notification or by all rule so long as the competent authority i.e., the Government makes the rule or the notification. No particular formality is prescribed for nominating the authorised officer under Section 207(2). As regards the propriety in conferring the power on the Secretary, RTA who is the highest officer of the Transport Department in the district, the wisdom of the rule making authority cannot be questioned on any germane ground. There is nothing wrong in conferring that power to an authority higher in rank than the checking officers who are usually Motor Vehicle Inspectors or the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The approach of such higher officer could be expected to be more objective and unbiased."
The correctness of the said decision has not been questioned before us.
27. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that the authorities exercising the power of detention and seizure of the vehicles are under statutory obligation to see, having regard to the provisions of Rule 139 of the Central Rules, that only minimal inconvenience is caused to owners of the vehicles and, they, in appropriate cases, instead of resorting to seizing and detaining the vehicles, should, take recourse to the proviso to sub-
MSM,J WP_18650_2019 35 section (1) of Section 207 of the Act. The scheme of the Act is not to seize and detain the vehicles in petty matters as the offences can be compounded even upon payment of Rs.2,000/-
The authorities should also bear in mind the observations made by this Court hereinbefore and in the event any application is filed for release of the vehicle, the same should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three days from the date of filing such applications. In the event such applications are to be rejected, sufficient and cogent reasons therefore must be stated." In view of the principles laid down in "Meerja Hameedullah Baig v. Regional Transport Authority, South Zone, Hyderabad"
(referred supra), right to carry on transport business is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and that the vehicle cannot be detained and seized by exercising power under Section 207 of the M.V.Act since the department is not vested with any power to confiscate the vehicles to the State for the violations found during vehicle check. Therefore, the detention and seizure of the vehicles and keeping those vehicles under custody of the department is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in "Meerja Hameedullah Baig v. Regional Transport Authority, South Zone, Hyderabad" (referred supra) and contrary to the principle laid down in Raman and Raman Limited v. The State of Madras" (referred supra).
Turning to the facts of the present case, vehicle being plied by the petitioners are having valid permits as per the statement filed along with the petition and that the violations pointed by the authorities are artificial violations and minor in nature created artificially by the department apparently to wreck vengeance against the family of the petitioner on account of political patronage with the political party in power prior to present political party came into MSM,J WP_18650_2019 36 power in the general elections in the State. Detention and seizure of most of the vehicles being run by the petitioners in different routes are not covered by Section 207 of the M.V.Act. Such illegal detention and seizure would cause substantial, irreparable loss and irreversible injury to the petitioners and it is a blatant violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. When the officials of the State have intentionally violated the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India to the citizens i.e. petitioners herein, as the detention and seizure of the vehicles is illegal, without any basis and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and Division Benches of this Court, the petitioners are entitled to claim substantial damages against the State and its officials, which can be recovered from the officials in their personal capacity for such infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The damages/compensation is concerned; no material is placed before this Court to quantify the damages. Therefore, it is left open to the petitioners to claim damages from the State and its officials for infringement of their fundamental right of carrying transport business in separate independent proceedings. As discussed above, even if there is any violation as contemplated under Section 207 of the M.V.Act i.e. violation of Sections 3 or 4 or Section 39 or sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the M.V.Act, such violations are only compoundable by collecting compounding fee mentioned in various check reports. The amount of compounding fee is meager, but caused substantial loss to the petitioners depriving them to ply the buses in the routes permitted by the State. Moreover, in view of the principles laid down in "Meerja Hameedullah Baig v. Regional Transport Authority, South Zone, Hyderabad" and "Saleem MSM,J WP_18650_2019 37 Tours and Travels v. Joint Commissioner and Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad", (referred supra), the detention and seizure of the vehicles is without any authority for the violations, which can be compounded, is a serious illegality and all the buses are directed to be released irrespective of violations complained in the vehicle check reports and the concerned authorities are directed to permit the petitioners to produce permits and other documents required to ply the vehicles pointed out in the vehicle check reports with reference to violations contained in Section 207 of the M.V.Act and release all the buses henceforth after collecting compounding fee, if there is any violation.
P O I N T No.2:
One of the contentions raised by Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader is that when the authorities passed order refusing to release the vehicles, which is appealable, the petitioners are entitled to file appeal, but this Court cannot decide the legality of the orders passed by the authorities.
No doubt, this Court cannot decide the validity of the orders passed by the transport authorities in the present writ petition, but this Court can examine the legality of the detention and seizure of the vehicles, when the same is challenged before this Court with reference to provisions of the M.V.Act and Rules framed under the Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (referred supra). If the Court found that the very seizure of the vehicle is illegal, the orders passed by the authorities on the applications filed under Rule 448-A of the M.V.Rules will not come in the way of passing this Order; merely because they are not challenged by filing a separate petition, the hands of the Courts are not tied, while exercising power of judicial MSM,J WP_18650_2019 38 review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a direction to release the vehicles when the Court found that the very detention and seizure is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Courts. Therefore, the contention of Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader is hereby rejected.
Though the applications filed by the petitioners under Rule 448-A of the M.V.Rules dismissed rejecting the claim of the petitioner for release of the vehicles, when the Court found that the very detention and seizure are illegal, this Court can issue a direction for release of the vehicle.
In view of my foregoing discussion, I hold without any hesitation that the detention and seizure of the vehicles belonging to the petitioners noting certain irregularities in the vehicle check reports (referred supra) and failure to release the vehicles for days together is a direct infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India by the State and its instrumentalities, apart from that it is totally contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in "Raman and Raman Limited v. The State of Madras" (referred supra), and the Division Bench of this Court in "Meerja Hameedullah Baig v. Regional Transport Authority, South Zone, Hyderabad" (referred supra), the detention and seizure of the vehicles is arbitrary exercise of power conferred on them. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of the respondents in detaining and seizing the vehicles bearing Nos. APO2TE0135, APO2TA5373, AP02TH4220, AP02TB6696, AP02TC3969, APO2TH4340, APO2TH4178, AP02TE2232, APO2TH4218, AP02TA7794, APO2TH4219, APO2TH4217, MSM,J WP_18650_2019 39 APO2TE0126, KA34A8874, KA34A0987, KA01AK3929, AP02TE2196, AP02TA3654, AP39X7699, AP02TA5769, and AP39X7599 is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners or their authorized representatives are directed to approach the authorities, who detained and seized the vehicles, produce copies of permits and tax challans evidencing payment of tax on 23.12.2019 and 24.12.2019 between 10.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m. and on such production of documents pertaining to vehicles, on collection of compounding fee, in case there is any violation, the respondents are directed to release all the vehicles on 24.12.2019 by 05.00 p.m. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 21.12.2019 Ksp Note:
Issue C.C. today.
B/o Ksp