VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Carrying passengers more than the number specified in the permit will not be violation of the purpose for which the permit is granted. Under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act; Police Officer has no power or authority to seize and detain a vehicle on the score that the bus carries more number of passengers than the one specified in the permit.

Headnote:(i) Motor Vehicles Act-Section 207(1)-Seizure and detention of vehicle-Police officers power to-Carrying passengers more than number specified in permit will not be violation of purpose for which permit is granted-On ground of carrying passengers in excess of number allowed in permit police officer cannot seize and detain vehicle-Police officer has no such power-Such act would be illegal and unauthorised-High Court rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000 for illegal and unauthorised seizure and detention of vehicle.
       Held : Power of seizure has been conferred upon the appropriate authority, which power is in fact a sovereign power of the State and has been delegated to the police officer in discharge of their duties of law enforcement and in the enforcement of an orderly society. The Power, therefore, is required to be exercised with care and caution and the power has to be exercised only when the pre-condition for exercise of power is fully satisfied. It is a cardinal principle of rule of construction of statute that when the language of a statue is fairly and reasonably clear, then inconvenience or hardships are no considerations for refusing to give effect to that meaning. It is not the contention of the learned counsel, appearing for the State nor can it be said that on giving a plain meaning to the words used in Section 207(1) of the Act, there will be any absurdity or would make the statute offending any provisions of the Constitution. The intention of the legistature is required to be gathered from the language used and, therefore, a construction, which requires, for its support with additional substitution on words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. Bearing in mind, the aforesaid principles of construction of statute and on examining the provisions of Section 207 of the Act, which has been quoted earlier, we have no doubt in our mind that the police officer would be authorised to detain a vehicle, if he has reason to believe that the vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required under 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. (Para 8)
       Reading the provisions as it is, the conclusion is irresistible that the condition of permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle could be used if contravened, would only authorise the police officer to detain the vehicle and not each and every condition of permit on being violated or contravened, the police officer would be entitled to detain the vehicle. (Para 8)
       The expression "purpose for which the vehicle may be used" could not be construed to mean that when the vehicle is found to be carrying passengers more than the number prescribed in the permit, the purpose of user is otherwise, as the purpose would only refer to a contingency when a vehicle having a permit of stage carriage is used as a contract carriage or vice versa or where a vehicle having a permit for stage carriage or contract carriage is used as a goods vehicle and vice versa. But carrying passengers more than the number specified in the permit will not be a violation of the purpose for which the permit is granted. If the legislature really wanted to confer power of detention on the police officer for violation of any condition of the permit, then there would not have been the necessity of adding the expression "relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used". The user of the aforesaid expression cannot be ignored nor can it be said to be a tautology. We have also seen the Form of permit (Form P.Co.T.), meant in respect of a tourist vehicle, which is issued under Rule 72(1)(ix) and Rule 74(6) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. On seeing the different columns, we are unable to accede to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra, that carrying passengers beyond the number mentioned in Column 5, indicating the seating capacity, would be a violation of the conditions of permit relating to either the route or the area or the purpose for which the permit is granted. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impugned judgment and the detention of the vehicles has rightly been held to be unauthorised and consequently, the compensation awarded cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. (Para 8)
       (ii) Interpretation of Statutes-Principles of-When language of statute is fairly and reasonably clear, then inconvenience or hardship are no consideration for refusing to give effect to that meaning-Intention of legislature is required to be gathered from language used-Construction which require for its support with additional substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No. 362 of 1998. The High Court has held that when a luxury bus carries passengers, excess in number than allowed by the permit, there is a contravention of terms and conditions of the permit, yet however such contravention does not authorise a police officer to detain and seize the vehicle in exercise of powers under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore such detention and seizure must be held to be unauthorised and illegal. The said conclusion and the compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- having been awarded, the Sate of Maharashtra is in appeal against the same.

3. The association of the owners of the luxury buses in the districts of Nanded and Parbhani, moved the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that the police authorities illegally seized the vehicles of the members of the association in purported exercise of the powers under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that the buses were found to be carrying persons in excess of the number permitted by the authorities in the conditions of permit, though Section 207 does not authorise for such detention. It was accordingly prayed to declare such seizure and detention of the vehicles to be illegal and to award compensation. The State and the police authorities filed their returns before the High Court, contending inter alia that under Section 207(1) of the Act, the appropriate authority is entitled to seize and detain the vehicle if the vehicle in question is found to have violated any of the conditions of the permit and since permit itself contemplates a specified number of persons to be carried in the vehicle, the vehicle could be legally seized when it is found to be carrying more than the specified in the permit and, numbers therefore, the seizure and the detention of the vehicle cannot be said to be illegal or unauthorised. The High Court by the impugned judgment analysed different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder and on consideration of the same, came to the conclusion that it is not each and every violation of the conditions of the permit which would authorise the seizure and detention of the vehicle under Section 207(1) of the Act. On the other hand it is only when the conditions of permit relating to the area, the route or the purpose for which the vehicle is used, on being violated, the vehicle could be detained and, therefore, detention or seizure of a vehicle on the allegation that vehicle was found to be carrying passengers more than the number provided in the permit is not authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Act and consequently, such detention being unauthorised, the persons concerned are entitled to compensation.

4. The short question that arises and consideration is whether under sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Act, the appropriate authority can be said to have the power to detain a vehicle, the vehicle being found to be used in contravention of the conditions of permit relating to the number of passengers which could be carried in the vehicle.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently contended that the permit itself having provided for the number of passengers to be carried in the vehicle, when passengers excess in number than allowed for, is found to have been carried in the vehicle, it amounts to contravention of conditions of permit and, therefore, contravention of the conditions of permit would authorise the appropriate authority to detain the vehicle under Section 207(1) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the expression "conditions of permit" used in sub-section (1) of Section 207 should not be given any restrictive meaning, particularly when it is highly dangerous to carry passengers in excess of the nu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 170

Cases Referred (2)