Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
J.C. Uma Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 411 of 2020
Decided On : 01-05-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: N. Bharat Babu.
Point of Law: The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 207 is important. It says that seizure of vehicle is not mandatory in every instance. When the officer has reason to believe that the motor vehicle was used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 66(1), he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgment in respect thereof.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 - Declaring the action of respondents in seizing the seven public carriage vehicles of the petitioners and detaining without releasing them within three days in terms of Rule 448-B of the A.P. MV Rules as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Held, seizure and detention of the vehicles bearing Nos. AP 39X 7699 and AP 02TA 3654 under Section 207(1) of MV Act by the authorities is in accordance with law; however, the 2nd petitioner is at liberty to file an application under Section 207(2) of MV Act r/w 448-B of AP M.V. Rules by enclosing necessary documents within one week from the date of this order for release of his vehicles, in which case, the respondent authorities shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within three days from the date of receipt of the application and communicate the same to the petitioner - Writ petition is disposed of
Facts of the Case:
The petitioners’ case is that their family has been carrying on business in transport since several decades and as of now they possessed 31 State carriage permits and 20 contract carriage permits. On 30.12.2019 and 31.12.2019, the respondent authorities have, on flimsy and untenable grounds, seized seven of their vehicles
Finding of the Court:
Seizure and detention of the vehicles bearing Nos. AP 39X 7699 and AP 02TA 3654 under Section 207(1) of MV Act by the authorities is in accordance with law; however, the 2nd petitioner is at liberty to file an application under Section 207(2) of MV Act r/w 448-B of AP M.V. Rules by enclosing necessary documents within one week from the date of this order for release of his vehicles, in which case, the respondent authorities shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within three days from the date of receipt of the application and communicate the same to the petitioner
Result: writ petition is disposed of
ORDER :
1. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus:
(a) declaring the action of respondents in seizing the seven public carriage vehicles of the petitioners and detaining without releasing them within three days in terms of Rule 448-B of the A.P. MV Rules as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) and the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the A.P. MV Rules’).
(b) to direct the respondents not to resort to seize the vehicles of the petitioners, plying on the interstate routes henceforth, unless grave irregularities exists in terms of Sections 3, 4, 39 and 66 of the MV Act.
(c) declaring that the petitioners are entitled for the damages for the loss of business and reputation as determined by this Court and direct the respondents to pay the said amount.
(d) to direct the respondents to refund the tax paid for the seized vehicles from the date of seizure till release of the vehicles.
2. The petitioners’ case is that their family has been carrying on business in transport since several decades and as of now they possessed 31 State carriage permits and 20 contract carriage permits. On 30.12.2019 and 31.12.2019, the respondent authorities have, on flimsy and untenable grounds, seized seven of their vehicles. The particulars of the vehicles owned by petitioners 1 and 2 are mentioned in Table-1 and the vehicle wise violations as alleged in the check reports are shown in Table-II as follows:-
Table-I
| S. No. | Vehicle Number | Owner | Route | Permit No. and validity | Tax paid upto | Pollution obtained or not | Driver and validity of DL |
| 1 | AP02TH4220 | J.C. Uma Reddy | Anantapur to Bangalore | 17/61B valid upto 18.12.21 | 31.3.2020 | Obtained | Girish DL valid upto 26.3.2020 |
| 2 | AP02TH4219 | J.C. Uma Reddy | Anantapur to Bangalore | 17/61 18.12.21 | 31.3.2020 | -do- | Ananeya 2024 |
| 3 | AP02TE2322 | J.C. Uma Reddy | Anantapur to Bangalore | 27/50 8.5.2020 | 31.3.2020 | -do- | Hameed K. 14.12.2020 |
| 4 | AP02TH4218 | J.C. Uma Reddy | Anantapur to Bangalore | 11/61A 4.11.22 | 31.3.2020 | -do- | Jaya Naik 31.6.2024 |
| 5 | AP02TA5373 | J.C. Uma Reddy | Anantapur to Hiriyuru | CS-AP/53/50(B) 15.11.2020 | 31.3.2020 | -do- | Suresh Babu 29.03.2021 |
| 6 | AP39X7699 | J.C. Nikhila Reddy | Anantapur to Hiriyuru | 53/50A 31.12.2023 | 31.3.2020 | -do- | N. Mallikaruna 2.4.2020 |
| 7 | AP02TA3654 | J.C. Nikhila Reddy | Gooty to Bellary | 4/65 8.3.2023 | 31.3.2020 | -do- | K. Srinivasulu 8.10.2023 |
Table-II
| S. No. | Vehicle Number | Seized on | Seized by | Seized on route | Violations shown |
| 1 | AP02TH4220 | 30.12.2019 | RTA, Chittoor | AH43 | 1. Without permitviolation |
| 2 | AP02TH4219 | 31.12.2019 | RTA, Chittoor | Office of Tahsildar | 1. Without permitviolation |
| 3 | AP02TE2322 | 30.12.2019 | RTA, Proddutur | M/s. Siflon Drug factory | 1. Seating alteration |
| 2. Without permitviolation | |||||
| 3. Speed Limiting device not fixed not working | |||||
| 4. No Reflectors | |||||
| 4 | AP02TH4218 | 30.12.2019 | RTA, Chittoor | AH43 | 1. Without permitviolation |
| 5 | AP02TA5373 | 30.12.2019 | RTA, Chittoor | 515763 | 1. Seating alteration |
| 2. Without permitviolation | |||||
| 3. Without PUC | |||||
| 6 | AP39X7699 | 30.12.2019 | RTA, Chittoor | Bellary road | 1. Without Permitviolation |
| 7 | AP02TA3654 | 30.12.2019 | RTA, Unit Office, Adoni | 515801 | 1. Not producing DL and RC without document |
| 2. Seating alteration | |||||
| 3. Without permitviolation |
3. The further case of the petitioners is that the allegation that the vehicles are not covered by permit is false. All the vehicles possess valid permits issued by the transport authorities and their particulars are mentioned in Table-I. The motor vehicles tax for all the vehicles was also paid upto 31.03.2020. Thus, the alleged contraventions are invented only for the purpose of seizure of vehicles. Inspite of the re
