Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE Hyderabad
S. PARVATHA RAO, J.
D.P. Sharma and others – Appellant
Vs.
Transport Commissioner, A.P. Hyderabad and others – Respondents
W.P. NO. 6043 of 1992 and Batch
DECIDED ON : 16-02-1993
For the petitioner: Mr. K.N. Jwala
The distinction between a contract carriage and a stage carriage, and the requirement of furnishing lists of passengers travelling in the vehicles for each trip both in the case of contract carriages and in the case of tourist vehicles in respect of which tourist permits are granted, has been introduced under the New Rules and New Central Rules framed under the New Act to ensure that the said vehicles are run as contract carriages and not as stage carriages.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - CONTRACT CARRIAGE - SEIZURE AND DETENTION OF VEHICLES - COMPOUNDING FEES - CONDITIONS OF PERMIT - LIST OF PASSENGERS - RULES - INTERPRETATION - DISCRETION OF AUTHORITIES - GUIDELINES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, transport operators operating All India Tourist buses or contract carriages, filed writ petitions challenging the action of the respondents in subjecting their vehicles to compounding fees under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the New Act), seizing and detaining their vehicles under Section 207 of the New Act for alleged contravention of the condition of permit for the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, and plying as stage carriage. The petitioners contended that the contracts entered into by them for the carriage of passengers in the said vehicles did not alter their operation from contract carriage to stage carriage, and that the authorities were not justified in finding fault with the operation of the vehicles on the ground that they were being plied as stage carriages.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners had failed to establish that the authorities had acted without jurisdiction or in violation of the provisions of the New Act. The court clarified the distinction between a contract carriage and a stage carriage, and held that the requirement of furnishing lists of passengers travelling in the vehicles for each trip both in the case of contract carriages and in the case of tourist vehicles in respect of which tourist permits are granted, has been introduced under the New Rules and New Central Rules framed under the New Act to ensure that the said vehicles are run as contract carriages and not as stage carriages.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners' vehicles were being operated as stage carriages in contravention of the conditions of their permits. 2. Whether the authorities were justified in seizing and detaining the petitioners' vehicles under Section 207 of the New Act. 3. Whether the authorities were justified in demanding compounding fees from the petitioners under Section 200 of the New Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners had failed to establish that their vehicles were being operated as stage carriages in contravention of the conditions of their permits. The court clarified the distinction between a contract carriage and a stage carriage, and held that the requirement of furnishing lists of passengers travelling in the vehicles for each trip both in the case of contract carriages and in the case of tourist vehicles in respect of which tourist permits are granted, has been introduced under the New Rules and New Central Rules framed under the New Act to ensure that the said vehicles are run as contract carriages and not as stage carriages. 2. The court held that the authorities were justified in seizing and detaining the petitioners' vehicles under Section 207 of the New Act, as they had reason to believe that the vehicles were being used in contravention of the provisions of the New Act. However, the court held that the authorities had a discretion to seize or not to seize the vehicles, and that this discretion should be exercised reasonably and rationally. 3. The court held that the authorities were not justified in demanding compounding fees from the petitioners under Section 200 of the New Act, as there was no provision in the New Act for the collection of compounding fees.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, subject to the observations made regarding the exercise of power under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the authorities concerned.
JUDGMENT :
In all these Writ Petitions, the common prayer more or less is for a Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents i.e., mainly the Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Joint Transport Commissioner & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad and Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and their subordinates in subjecting the petitioners "for collecting compounding fees against driver, the absentee permit holder under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seizure and detention of the vehicles under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the alleged contravention of the condition of permit for the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, very often the alleged plying as stage carriage as illegal and without jurisdiction and it would be sufficient compliance of the provisions if a check report is made and action taken in accordance with law for prosecution etc., and issue any other appropriate writ order or direction". The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are transport operators operating All India Tourist buses or contract carriages.
2. At the time when these Writ Petitions were admitted, interim directions were granted by this Court directing the respondents and their subordinates not to collect compounding fees under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act') or seize and detain the vehicles of the petitioners for allegedly plying as stage carriage so long as the said vehicles are operating with valid registration, permit, payment of tax, fitness certificate and insurance.
3. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions state that the various vehicles being plied by them have valid registration certificates and also valid permits i.e., either all India tourist omnibus permits or contract carriage permits and also that they are covered by valid fitness certificates and the necessary insurance. They also state that all the taxes payable on the said vehicles are being paid by them regularly. Their grievance is that when the said vehicles are being operated with the requisite permits and without any tax dues they are being stopped en route and compounding fees are being demanded on the ground that they are being operated as stage carriages. The drivers of the said vehicles, according to them, are forced to pay the compounding fees demanded by the authorities concerned both for themselves as well as on behalf of the owners of the said vehicles as otherwise the said vehicles are being seized and detained causing great hardship to the passengers travelling in the said vehicles and also great loss to the petitioners. In order to avoid seizure of the vehicles which are equipped with fairly expensive gadgets and to avoid the wrath of the passengers and to save them from the harassment, the drivers are forced to pay the compounding fees as demanded by the authorities concerned. The petitioners state that seizure of the said vehicles would invariably mean vehicles costing anywhere from 8 to 10 lakhs being out of operation for uncertain duration. The petitioners state that this collection of compounding fees in respect of the said vehicles occurs regularly for every trip and therefore they are subjected to very heavy financial loss resulting in driving them out of the business. It is their further case that this type of harassment is found only in the State of Andhra Pradesh and not in other States like Karnataka, Tamilnadu, Maharashtra, etc.
4. The first contention advanced by Mr. K.N. Jwala, leading the arguments for the petitioners, is that the contracts entered into by the petitioners for the carriage of passengers in the said vehicles do not alter their operation from contract carriage to stage carriage. The said vehicles do not take any passengers en route. The said vehicles are being engaged by various travel agents; they give the list of passengers and engage the vehicles for the onward trip from
