S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) IN these Writ Petitions, the vires of rule 448-B of Andhra Pradesh Motor vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the State Rules ) framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 28,38, 95, 96,107, 111, 138 and 176 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) is called in question. An incidental question as regards the correctness or otherwise of a decision of this Court in M. Venkateswara rao vs. Secretary, R. T. A. also arises for consideration.

( 2 ) WHILE admitting the Writ Petitions, it was observed that the findings of the learned Single Judge in Venkateswara Rao s case to the effect that a Writ of Mandamus would not lie directing the release of the vehicles nor the seizure itself can be declared as illegal as well as the finding that the aggrieved persons have to necessarily file application for release of the vehicle seized and detained by the competent authority, if they so desire, may be considered afresh in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Nanded-Parbhani Z. I. B. M. vs. Operators sangh.

( 3 ) THE Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. Chapter XIII of the said Act deals with offences, penalties and procedure. Section 207 empowers any police Officer or other person authorised by the State Government to seize and detain a vehicle in the manner prescribed therein if he has 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 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 and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle. Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 207 of the Act reads 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 Sec. 66 he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate or registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgment in respect thereof. " sub-section (2) of Section 207 reads thus:"where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-sec. (1), the owner or person in-charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any office authorised in this behalf by the State government together with the relevant document 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. "

( 4 ) THE word prescribed has been defined in Section 2 (32) to mean prescribed by rules made under the Act. The word owner has been defined in section 2 (30) in the following terms:"owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. "

( 5 ) PURSUANT to or in furtherance of the power conferred upon the Central government under the provisions of the act, the Central Government has made rules known as Central Motor Vehicles rules, 1989. Rules 139 and 164 which are relevant for the purpose of these cases read as follows:"139. Production of licence and certificate of registration: The driver or a conductor of a motor vehicle shall produce certificate of registration, insurance, fitness and permit, the driving licence and any other relevant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document