JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. :- The Andhra Pradesh High Court has declared Section 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act unconstitutional and void as offending Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. We may straightway say that the judgment of the High Court suffers from serious infirmities, not the least of which is the total failure to notice and consider the applicability of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the situation.

2. On an oral application by the Advocate General, the High Court granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Presumably, by leave the High Court meant a certificate as provided under the Constitution. The order of the High Court regarding the grant of leave to appeal to this Court is in the following terms : "An oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been made by the learned Advocate General. The question whether S. 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is ultra vires the Constitution on the ground that in infringes Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution relates to the interpretation of the Constitution and is also a substantial question of law of general importance, which requires to be decided by the Supreme Court. Therefore, we grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court".

The order of the High Court states, (i) that the question relates to the interpretation of the Constitution; and (ii) the question is also a substantial question of law of general importance which requires to be decided by the Supreme Court. The order of the High Court while saying that the question relates to the interpretation of the Constitution refrained from certifying that the case involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. We can not therefore, treat the certificate as one under Art. 132 of the Constitution. On the other had the High Court has certified that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and it require to be decided by the Supreme Court, employing the precise language used in clauses (a) and (b) respectively of Art. 133(1) of the Constitution. The certificate, therefore, was clearly one under Art. 133 of the Constitution. We are mentioning these circumstances because at the very commencement, our attention was invited to Art. 145(3) of the Constitution which provides that the minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Art. 143 shall be five. The High Court had not certified that the cases involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and we are also satisfied that the cases do not involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. We proceeded to hear the appeals and writ petitions after the position was clarified when the cases were opened by the learned counsel.

3. Section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act may be extracted here. It is as follows:-

"129-A Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration or permit. - Any police officer authorised in this behalf 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 22 or without the permit required by sub-section (2) of Section 42 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, 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 without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 42, he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration o