1991 Supreme(AP) 588

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO, P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
P.Ravindranath Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. rep.by its Secretary, Transport, R and B department, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 12-30-91

The power to compound offences under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not an unguided and uncanalised delegation of legislative power and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTIONS 200, 207 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES - INCREASE IN COMPOUNDABLE AMOUNT - MULTIPLIER FOR SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT OFFENCES - SEIZURE AND DETENTION OF VEHICLES - RULES 448 AND 448-A - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION - DISCRETION OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, transport operators holding contract carriage permits, challenged the constitutionality of sub-section (1) of Section 200 and sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the legality of G.O. Ms. No. 108 dated 12-4-1990 and C.O. Rt. No. 947 dated 4-8-1990. The petitioners alleged that the authorities were indiscriminately subjecting contract carriage operators to harassment, imposing higher compounding fees, and seizing and detaining vehicles without following proper procedures.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the validity of Sections 200(1) and 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and G.O. Ms. No. 108 dated 12-4-1990. The court held that the increase in the compoundable amount was not arbitrary and was guided by the maximum fine amount indicated in Section 192 of the Act. The court also held that the multiplier for second and subsequent offences in the proviso to paragraph 2 of G.O. Ms. No. 108 should be construed as referring to second and subsequent offences held proved in a criminal court of competent jurisdiction, and not to second and subsequent compositions. The court further held that the authorised officer under Section 207(1) was not denuded of the power of discretion in the matter of seizure and detention of vehicles.

Issues: 1. Whether the increase in the compoundable amount under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the multiplier for second and subsequent offences in the proviso to paragraph 2 of G.O. Ms. No. 108 was valid and constitutional? 3. Whether the seizure and detention of vehicles under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was valid and constitutional? 4. Whether Rules 448 and 448-A, which conferred power on officials to detain vehicles and laid down the procedure for seizure and detention, were validly made?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The increase in the compoundable amount was not arbitrary as it was guided by the maximum fine amount indicated in Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The multiplier for second and subsequent offences in the proviso to paragraph 2 of G.O. Ms. No. 108 should be construed as referring to second and subsequent offences held proved in a criminal court of competent jurisdiction, and not to second and subsequent compositions. 3. The seizure and detention of vehicles under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was valid and constitutional as the authorised officer had the discretion to seize and detain the vehicle or to seize the certificate of registration instead. 4. Rules 448 and 448-A, which conferred power on officials to detain vehicles and laid down the procedure for seizure and detention, were validly made as they were made in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 28, 38, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138, and 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly. The two writ appeals were dismissed as unnecessary since the court had decided the main writ petitions themselves.