Telangana High Court
Smt. Marati Uma Maheshwari And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 21 April, 2020
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.6236 OF 2020
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in detaining the vehicle bearing registration No. TS 08 EP 0144 of the 1st petitioner/ owner, as being illegal, unconstitutional and sans any sanction of law with a consequential prayer to direct the 3rd respondent to release the vehicle forthwith.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. The case of the petitioners is that, the 1st petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. The 2nd petitioner is the husband of the 1st petitioner, was using the said vehicle for commuting to his work place and that on 06.03.2020, while the 2nd petitioner was coming home after attending work, the 3rd respondent-Station House officer and other constables who were deployed to check vehicles and to determine whether the drivers of those vehicles were in inebriated condition or not, stopped and subjected him to breath analyzer test and alleged that he is in an inebriated state and detained the vehicle, and that the said vehicle is presently lying at Kukatpally Traffic Police Station, in the open space and he was also issued with e-challan mentioning violations under Sections 185 (a), 130/177 and Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the M.V. Act'), which are not applicable to drunk and drive cases. The grievance of the 2 petitioners is that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to detain the vehicle in question.
4. Learned Assistant Government for Home, on instructions, submits that the 1st petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, but on 06.03.2020, at about 23.07 hrs., the vehicle was driven by the 2nd petitioner and when he reached the place near Kolan Raghava Reddy Function hall area within the Kukatpally Traffic Police station jurisdiction, the respondent police stopped and subjected the 2nd petitioner/driver to breath analyzer test and found the 2nd petitioner having consumed alcohol above the permitted limit as per the breath analyzer test and since the driver of the vehicle was not in a position to drive the vehicle and as he did not produce the relevant documents, the police authorities have taken safe custody of the vehicle temporarily and placed the vehicle at the 3rd respondent police station by exercising powers under Section 207 of the M.V. Act. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that from the documents annexed to the writ petition, it is clear that the 1st petitioner is the owner of the vehicle as per the certificate of registration issued by the Transport Department of Telangana and the 2nd petitioner was driving the vehicle on the said date. He would further submit that if the petitioners/owner and the driver of the vehicle in question along with their proof of identity and relevant documents of the vehicle appear before the concerned police authorities with whom the vehicle is in safe custody and on paying the prescribed fine, the vehicle would be released to the 1st petitioner/owner of the vehicle. 3
5. In so far as the police authorities taking custody of the vehicle on the driver being found in inebriated condition, this Court in W.P.No.2361 of 2019 observed that 'Even if the driver on that particular day was unable to drive the vehicle, that does not mean that respondents can retain the vehicle.
6. Having regard to the above said submissions and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st petitioner/owner is directed to appear before the 3rd respondent authority along with the 2nd petitioner/driver of the vehicle with proof of their identity and relevant documents of the vehicle in question. Upon the petitioners/owner and the driver of the vehicle approaching the 3rd respondent or other official, who has the safe custody of the vehicle in question and making an application for release of the vehicle together with relevant documents, the said authority shall consider the same and release the vehicle to the 1st petitioner (lady)/owner forthwith by collecting fine as prescribed under the M.V. Act for non-production of documents, other violations and also if such vehicle is not involved in any other case.
7. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
___________________________ JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR Date: 21.04.2020 MRKR 4