1. Seizure and detention of a vehicle under Section 207, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for violating contract carriage permit conditions by operating as a stage carriage. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 273
1997(2) Supreme 483
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
Nirmala Jagdishchandra Kabra -Petitioner
versus
Transport Commissioner & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2622 of 1997
Decided on 14-2-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Arun Jaitley, Sr. Advocate and S.C. Patel, Advocate.
Important Points
The Court held that using a vehicle with a contract carriage permit as a stage carriage, by collecting individual fares, violates permit conditions. Consequently, such vehicles can be legally seized and detained by authorized officers under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Subject
Motor Vehicle Law - Permit Violation
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Sections 206 & 207-Powers of authorised officer to seize and detain the vehicle or compound the offence if vehicle has been used in contravention of conditions of permit-Mandamus cannot be issued. (Para 3)
(ii) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Section 2(7)-Contract carriage permit-Should contain names of passengers to carry from one destination to another without picking up or setting down en route for hire or reward-Permitting another to carry passengers and make contract de-hors those mentioned in the test of passengers enclosed to the permit-Consequence would be that vehicle was being used as stage carriage-Authority had power to detain vehicle -Mandamus was rightly refused. (Para 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether transporting passengers from one destination to another without en route pickups constitutes a contract carriage under Section 2(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (Para 4 )
3. A vehicle used for passengers not listed in the contract carriage permit is treated as a stage carriage, justifying detention for permit condition contravention. (Para 4 )
4. Use of a vehicle for passengers not specified in the contract carriage permit constitutes operation as a stage carriage, regardless of whether passengers are picked up en route. (Para 4 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. Under what circumstances can a vehicle be seized or detained under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
An authorized officer may seize and detain a vehicle if it is used in contravention of Sections 3, 4, or 39, without a permit required by Section 66(1), or in violation of permit conditions relating to the route, area, or purpose of use. (Para 2 )
7. What is the legal requirement for a vehicle to be classified as a contract carriage regarding its passenger list?
A contract carriage permit should contain the names of the passengers to be carried. If the holder carries passengers not mentioned in the list enclosed to the permit, the vehicle is considered to be used as a stage carriage. (Para 4 )
8. Does avoiding the picking up or setting down of passengers en route ensure a vehicle is treated as a contract carriage?
No. Even if passengers are transported from one destination to another without picking up or setting down others en route, the vehicle is deemed a stage carriage if the passengers are not those specified in the contract carriage permit. (Para 4 )
ORDER
This special leave petition arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, made on December 4, 1996 in LPA No. 1430/96. The Motor Vehicle Inspector had imposed penalty of Rs. 1,000/- etc. for violation of the conditions of the contract carriage permit. It was found that the vehicle was being as stage carriage in violation of the breach of the conditions of the permit inasmuch as petitioner was collecting individual fares @ Rs. 1.60 per passenger and was not using the vehicle as a tourist; vehicle hired to one group party. The petitioner filed writ petition in the High Court seeking the relief as under:
"To allow this petition and to issue appropriate writ, direction and order holding and declaring that the respondent authorities have no legal right or power or authority to either seize or detain the petitioner s vehicles shown at Annexure A to this petition in purported exercise of power under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 solely on the allegation of collection of individual fare from the passengers."
2. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench refused to grant the relief in the face of Section 207(1) read with proviso thereto, of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, the Act ). Section 207 of the Act postulates the power to detain vehicle used without certificate of registration etc. Sub-section (1) provides thus :"
"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 to Section 3 or Section 4 or 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."
The proviso postulates thus :
"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."
3. There is a power for compounding the offence provided in Section 206 of the Act. In the light of the sub-section (1) of Section 207, if the officer authorised in that behalf is of the opinion that the vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of any of the aforesaid provisions of the Act or conditions of the permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle is used, he may seize and detain the vehicle or compound the offence. The statutory power given to the authorised officer under Section 207 is to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the mandamus sought for cannot be issued, as referred to earlier.
4. It is contended by Shri Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has taken the vehicle on hire basis from the owner of the vehicle who had the permit for contract carriage of the passengers from one destination to another. They are not collecting any individual fare en route by picking up or setting down the passengers. They are picking up passengers from one place and taking them for tour to the other destination and, therefore, it is a "contract carriage" within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act. It is not a State carriage permit but one of contract carriage and, therefore, the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law. It is true that if the holder of the vehicle obtains a contract carriage, the owner may carry a passenger or passengers for hire or reward on contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of suc
