Back
2003 Supreme(Del) 560
High Court Of Delhi
SREENATH TRAVEL AGENCY - Appellant
Versus
LT.GOVERNOR OF DELHI - Respondent
CIV.WRIT 4686 of 1998
Decided On : 07/07/2003
AVINISH AHLAVAT, MUKESH VERMA, R.K.KAPOOR
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 207 — Detention of vehicles — Exercise of power — Where a statute provides that the doing of a particular act or exercise of a particular power in the manner prescribed by the statute, the act should be done or the power be exercised only in that manner or not at all — As Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act conferring power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration, permit, etc. to be exercised "in the prescribed manner", insofar as Delhi is concerned, there is no prescribed manner inasmuch as no rules framed in this regard, seizure or detention of vehicles under that section is illegal — Vehicle seized to be released — Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 129A.
Held:
There is a clear difference between Section 129-A of the old Act and Section 207 of the new Act. The distinction being the specific introduction of the words "in the prescribed manner" in Section 207 which were absent in Section 129-A of the Old Act. It cannot be presumed that Parliament has mindlessly introduced the words "in the prescribed manner" in Section 207 of the said Act. Because these words were absent in the earlier provision of Section 129-A of the old Act, their presence in Section 207 of the new Act would clearly imply that their introduction was intentional and with a purpose. The words cannot be construed as being redundant or meaningless. Moreover, the word "prescribed" has also been defined under Section 2(32) of the said Act to mean prescribed by rules made under the Act. It is thus clear that prescribed manner would mean the manner prescribed by the rules made under the Act. If no rules are made under the Act there is no prescribed manner.
If a power is to be exercised in a certain way then it must be exercised in that way or not at all. All other modes of performance are forbidden.
Since the power must be exercised only in the prescribed manner and there being no manner prescribed, the power cannot be exercised at all. In the facts of the present case, I find that since rules have admittedly not been framed for dealing with the seizure and detention of vehicles under Section 207, there is no manner prescribed. Thus, following the "basic principle of law long settled", the petitioners vehicle could have been impounded under Section 207(1) only "in the prescribed manner". There being no prescribed manner, the vehicle could not have been impounded.
The action on the part of the respondents in impounding the petitioners vehicle was illegal. The respondents are directed to forthwith release the petitioners vehicle, if the same is still under their detention. Further, the respondents are restrained from seizing or detaining the petitioners said vehicle under the provisions of Section 207(1) of the said Act till the manner of seizure and detention of vehicles under this section is prescribed by framing and enforcement of appropriate rules under the said Act. However, this direction shall not, in any manner, prevent the respondents from taking appropriate action against the petitioner in respect of defaults committed or that may be committed by it under other provisions of the said Act.
( 1 ) THE petitioner s tourist bus bearing registration no. RJ-30-P0058 was impounded by Respondents 2 and 3 under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") on 9. 6. 1998 at 9. 45 a. m. at Vasant Road, Delhi. In the challan annexed as Annexure P-2 (colly) the following offence was alleged to have been committed:
"carrying passengers from Chittaur to Delhi, checked found W/o R/c, w/o fitness, W/o permit, W/o I/c, W/o DC Badge, W/o Uniform, fails to produce any valid proof regarding aforementioned documents at the spot in originals. "
( 2 ) THE question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the respondents could have impounded the petitioner s vehicle under Section 207 (1) of the said Act when no Rules have been framed prescribing the manner of impounding? at the outset, it would be pertinent to set out the provisions of Section 207 (1) (so much as is relevant):
"207. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit, etc. (1) any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or section 39 or without the permit required by Sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle: provided that where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or without the permit required by Sub-section (1) of Section 66 he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgement in respect thereof. "
( 3 ) IT is the contention of Mr. R. K. Kapoor, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that a vehicle may be seized and detained in exercise of the powers under Section 207 (1) of the said Act only "in the prescribed manner". He contends that insofar as Delhi is concerned, there is no prescribed manner inasmuch as no rules have been framed in this regard. According to him, inasmuch as there is no prescribed manner for seizing and detaining vehicles, the petitioner s said tourist bus could not at all have been impounded in purported exercise of the powers under Section 207 (1) of the said Act. This, in short, is the petitioner s contention.
( 4 ) MR. Kapoor also drew my attention to the provisions of the definition section i. e. , Section 2 of the said Act and in particular to Sub-Section (32) thereof which entails that in the said Act, unless the context otherwise required, "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under the Act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, "prescribed manner" would have reference to the manner prescribed by the rules made under the Act. Since, no rules have been made for Delhi prescribing the manner of seizing and detaining vehicles under Section 207 of the said Act, there exists, in point of fact, no prescribed manner. As such, no vehicle could be impounded under Section 207 of the said Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of babu Verghese and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors. , II (1999) SLT 605=1999 (3) SCC 422 in support of his contention that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way then it must be done in that way or not at all. This decision, coupled with the fact that the Act and in particular Section 207 (1) thereof clearly stipulates that the vehicles may be seized and detained "in the prescribed manner", would imply that the ve
