Back
1990 Supreme(Pat) 19
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.Jha, J.
Madheshwar Prasad Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15 of 1989 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 15, 1990
Officers authorized to seize vehicles under Sec. 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, include employees of the State Government deputed to the Roadways Magistrate.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SEC. 129-A - POWER TO DETAIN VEHICLES USED WITHOUT CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OR PERMIT - INTERPRETATION - OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO SEIZE VEHICLES - EMPLOYEES OF STATE GOVERNMENT DEPUTED TO ROADWAYS MAGISTRATE - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a private bus operator, challenged the seizure of his vehicle by a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (BSRTC) for allegedly plying on a route other than the one for which he had a permit. The petitioner argued that the Sub-Inspector and the Roadways Magistrate, also deputed to the BSRTC, were interested parties and could not seize the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the power to seize vehicles for contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act) was vested in officers appointed or authorized by the State Government. The court noted that Rule 175 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, provided for the appointment of various officers in the Motor Vehicles (Transport) Department, including any other officer who may be appointed by the State Government from time to time.
Issues: 1. Whether a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the BSRTC and deputed by the State Government could check or seize the petitioner's bus? 2. Whether the Roadways Magistrate deputed to the BSRTC could try cases of private operators and pass orders, given their interest in the matter?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court distinguished the case from Ishwar Singh Bagga and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, where the Supreme Court held that officers of a state road transport corporation could not be authorized to discharge powers under Sec. 129-A of the Act. In that case, the officers were employees of the corporation, while in the instant case, the officers were employees of the State Government deputed to the BSRTC. 2. The court also distinguished the case from the Karnataka High Court decision in AIR 1989 Karnataka 157, which held that the deputation of police officers to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court noted that the rules of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, were not placed before it, and thus, it could not determine the applicability of that decision to the present case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition as infructuous since the vehicle had already been released. However, the court noted that the petitioner could raise the legal points in an appropriate writ application pending before the court.
S.N.Jha, J.
1. This application has been filed by the petitioners who are private bus operators for a direction to respondent No. 3 to release the vehicle of petitioner bearing Registration No. BPP 5656 having valid Registration Certificate, Certificate of Fitness, Permit, Insurance and Tax Tokens.
2. From the statements made in application it appear that on 22.1.1989 the said vehicle was checked by respondent No. 3 near Panel in Bihta within the police station of Bihta and it was seized (the copy of the seizure list is annexed herewith and marked as Anncxure-1 appended to the writ application).
3. According to the case of the petitioner he has valid registration book,, permit, certificate of fitness, insurance and tax tokens and he has also valid permit for plying his bus from Rajipur to Patna. While the bus was plying on the road, it was checked and seized as indicated above.
4. The petitioner has filed this writ application for release of his aforesaid vehicle and vide order dated 28.1.1989, notice was issued to respondents 2 and 3 to show cause as to why was issued to respondents 2 and 3 to show cause as to way this application should not be admitted. During the pendency of this application, the vehicle in question was released to the owner of the vehicle on furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Roadways Magistrate subject to the condition that the vehicle in question shall be produced before the appropriate authority as and when required.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, respondents 2 and 3 appeared and filed counter affidavit in which it has been stated that since the vehicle in question has already been released, this writ application has become infructuous. According to the counter affidavit, the petitioner is a private operator and had been given temporary permit No. 480/88 for operating the aforesaid bus exclusively on the route Rajipur to Patna via Bikra Sadisopur-Shimala which expires on 26.3.1989.
6. According to the case of the respondents, the petitioners were plying their vehicles not on the route for which permit was granted to them but on some other route. Therefore, the said vehicle was seized which was ultimately released in the light of the aforesaid order.
7. Mr. B.N. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner has raised some important questions of law to be decided in this writ application namely:
(i) Whether the Sub-Inspector of Police attached with Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (for short Corporation) and deputed by the State Government to the Corporation in the Vigilance, can check or seize the bus of the petitioners or not?
(ii) Whether the Executive Magistrate known as Roadways Magistrate deputed to the State Road Transport Corporation by the State Government can try the cases of the private operators and pass any order as they are interested parties to the case?
8. In order to appreciate the points raised by Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to examine some of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It may be relevant to mention here that Sec. 112-A of the Act has been introduced in 1979 by which powers were conferred upon the Magistrate and Police Officers to detain the travelling passengers without ticket. Sub-clause (2) of Sec. 112-A of the Act says that if the conductor of a stage carriage, or the driver of a stage carriage where such driver discharges the functions of a conductor in such stage carriage, whose duty is to- (a) to supply to ticket to a person pravelling in a stage carriage on payment of fare by such person, either wilfully or negligently- (i) fails or refuses to accept the fare when tendered, or (ii) fails or refuses to supply a ticket, or (iii) supplies an invalid ticket, or (iv) supplies a ticket of lessor value, or to check any pass or ticket, either wilfully or negligently fails or refuses to do so, he shall be punishable with tine, which may exte
