1995 Supreme(Kar) 171

Karnataka High Court
PANDIT RAMACHANDRA HARIHAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 03-27-95
W.P. : 2392 of 1995

The composition of offences punishable under Section 192-a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was impermissible, as Section 200 of the Act, as amended, did not permit the composition of such offences.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 192-A, 200, 207 - COMPOSITION FEE - SEIZURE OF VEHICLES - CONTRACT CARRIAGE - TOURIST VEHICLE - VALIDITY OF COMPOSITION - PROCEDURE FOR SEIZURE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - DISCRETION OF AUTHORITIES - GUIDELINES FOR EXERCISE OF DISCRETION - INCONVENIENCE TO PASSENGERS - DEFINITION OF 'TOURIST' - GENUINENESS OF TOURISTS - USE OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE AS STAGE CARRIAGE - EXISTENCE OF PRIOR CONTRACT - MAXI-CABS - CHARGING OF SEPARATE FARES.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, tourist and contract carriage operators, challenged the power of the respondent motor vehicle authorities to levy and recover composition fee for offences punishable under Section 192-a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the procedure followed by them while seizing vehicles under Section 207 of the Act. They contended that the authorities had no jurisdiction to impose or recover any composition fee for an offence punishable under Section 192-a, as Section 200, as amended by Act 54 of 1994, did not permit composition of any such offence. They also argued that the seizure of vehicles at odd hours and in desolate places caused extreme hardship to passengers, and that the authorities should be directed to adopt a procedure for seizure that would cause the least possible inconvenience to passengers.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the composition of offences punishable under Section 192-a of the Motor Vehicles Act was impermissible, as Section 200 of the Act, as amended, did not permit the composition of such offences. The court also held that the petitioners were not entitled to have the composition of offences committed before the introduction of Section 192-a reversed, as they had acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the authorities and had not challenged the same at the appropriate stage. However, the court directed the authorities to record reasons for seizing vehicles under Section 207 of the Act, and to defer the actual take over of the vehicle till it reached its destination, to avoid inconvenience to passengers. The court also held that the term 'tourist' had not been defined under the Act or the rules, but a tourist was a person who moved from place to place with a view to see the countryside and to enjoy its surroundings. The court further held that a contract carriage was required to be hired as a whole for a fixed or agreed sum under a prior contract, express or implied, and that the existence of such a contract was the very foundation of the user of a vehicle as a contract carriage.

Issues: 1. Whether the composition of offences punishable under Section 192-a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was permissible? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to have the composition of offences committed before the introduction of Section 192-a reversed? 3. Whether the authorities were required to record reasons for seizing vehicles under Section 207 of the Act? 4. Whether the actual take over of the vehicle could be deferred till it reached its destination, to avoid inconvenience to passengers? 5. Whether the term 'tourist' had been defined under the Act or the rules? 6. Whether a contract carriage was required to be hired as a whole for a fixed or agreed sum under a prior contract, express or implied?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The composition of offences punishable under Section 192-a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was impermissible, as Section 200 of the Act, as amended, did not permit the composition of such offences. 2. The petitioners were not entitled to have the composition of offences committed before the introduction of Section 192-a reversed, as they had acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the authorities and had not challenged the same at the appropriate stage. 3. The authorities were required to record reasons for seizing vehicles under Section 207 of the Act, to indicate why the seizure of the certificate of registration would not suffice. 4. The actual take over of the vehicle could be deferred till it reached its destination, to avoid inconvenience to passengers. 5. The term 'tourist' had not been defined under the Act or the rules, but a tourist was a person who moved from place to place with a view to see the countryside and to enjoy its surroundings. 6. A contract carriage was required to be hired as a whole for a fixed or agreed sum under a prior contract, express or implied, and the existence of such a contract was the very foundation of the user of a vehicle as a contract carriage.

Final Decision: The petitions were disposed of with the following directions: (i) The authorities were not entitled to compound offences punishable under Section 192-a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or recover any composition fee from the petitioners or other operators. (ii) The challenge to the compositions of offences committed before and after the introduction of Section 192-a of the Act failed. (iii) The respondent-authorities and their subordinates were to record reasons for seizing vehicles under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in cases covered by the proviso to the said Section, indicating why the seizure of the certificate of registration would not suffice. (iv) In the event of the authorities deciding to seize a vehicle under Section 207 of the Act, the actual take over of the vehicle was to be deferred till such time the vehicle reached the destination for which it was heading, to avoid inconvenience to the passengers travelling in the same. (v) The respondents were to punctually and faithfully abide by the above directions and take appropriate steps to ensure that the same were circulated for information of and compliance by all those who were charged with the duty to enforce the Provisions of the Act. (vi) Parties were to bear their own costs.