Unauthorized detention of a vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act and the liability of the State for high-handed actions of RTO officers

JUDGMENT

Revati Mohite Dere, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned APP waives service on behalf of respondent-State.

3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks release of his vehicle having registration No. MH43AQ9191, make-Toyota Kirlosar Motor Pvt. Ltd., Model Fortuner 3.0L 2 WD MT, Colour White, year 2013, Engine No. IKDU258934, Chassis No. MBJ11JV6104012952, currently lying at RTO Test Ground, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, to the petitioner, forthwith; as well as a direction to the respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detention of the petitioner's vehicle was unwarranted and contrary to the provisions of law. He submits that the petitioner had purchased the said car from Shri Siman Kaskar (Auto Pulse Showroom), who was a successful bidder in the auction conducted by the Kotak Mahindra Bank for the said motor vehicle. Learned counsel relied on the Sale Agreement entered into between the petitioner and Mr. Siman Kaskar dated 2nd July 2018. He submits that after the petitioner had purchased the said vehicle, the RTO duly transferred the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. Learned counsel relied on the release order for the said vehicle issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank, registration certificate, fitness certificate and PUC of the said vehicle. He further submits that the petitioner has also been paying for the insurance of the said vehicle, since its purchase in 2018. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the incident took place on 4th December 2020, when the petitioner's vehicle was standing at BPK Compound, Hirani Road, Near Lucky Hotel, Saki Naka, Mumbai. He submits that an Officer of the RTO approached the vehicle in which the petitioner's driver was sitting and handed over a challan receipt to him. The challan receipt was issued for two offences i.e. as the registration certificate and the PUC of the vehicle were not produced. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite the fact, that the petitioner's driver expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the fine, the respondent-Officer took away the said vehicle and refused to release the same. The Officer of the RTO informed the driver that the said vehicle was impounded by them. On 7th December 2020, the petitioner gave a written representation to the respondent seeking release of his vehicle which was allegedly impounded under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that without hearing the petitioner, the Officer of the RTO informed the petitioner vide letter dated 15th December 2020 that the said vehicle cannot be released though the petitioner had annexed the registration certificate and insurance papers as one Balasaheb Chattar was also claiming to be the previous owner of the said vehicle and accordingly, asked the petitioner to obtain an order from the appropriate Court. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an application for release of his vehicle under Section 457 Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel states that as the Court was not inclined to grant any relief as the Court had no jurisdiction, the petitioner was constrained to withdraw the said application. Hence, the aforesaid petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there was no justification whatsoever for the respondent-RTO to seize/impound/detain the vehicle. He submits that Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which the vehicle was allegedly detained, will not apply in the facts and hence, the detention of the vehicle was clearly illegal, unauthorised and without jurisdiction. He submits that the RTO, by no stretch of imagination, could have detained the vehicle on the premise that the original owner was also claiming ownership of the said vehicle, more particularly, when the petitioner had shown that he ha