( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against an order of the learned single Judge dated march 26, 1996. By that order the learned single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner to release the vehicle - a jeep car bearing No. GJ-8t- 8049 detained by P. S. I. , Tharad in exercise of powers under Sec. 207 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) IT is the case of the appellant that he owned a jeep car bearing above number. It was detained by P. S. I. , Tharad on November 5, 1995 on allegation that though the vehicle in question was a delivery van (goods vehicle) and, hence, could not have carried passengers, certain passengers were carried in it. According to the appellant, the action of detention of the vehicle was contrary to law as neither the appellant nor his driver committed any illegality or irregularity. The appellant, therefore, approached the Court of the learned J. M. F. C. , Tharad by filing Cri. Misc. Application No. 23 of 1995 for release of the vehicle. The learned j. M. F. C. , Tharad by an order dated November 18, 1995 rejected the application on the ground that no case was registered in connection with the vehicle in question and hence he had no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, hence, said application was not maintainable.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order, the appellant approached the Sessions court, by filing Cri. Revn. Application which also came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by an order dated November 27, 1995. In the circumstances, the appellant approached this Court by filing Special Criminal Application No. 164 of 1996 and a prayer was made to direct the respondent authorities to release the vehicle as the order to detain the vehicle was arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The learned single Judge rejected the said petition against which the appellant has filed the present appeal.

( 4 ) A number of contentions were raised by Mr. Jhaveri, learned Advocate for the appellant but it is not necessary for us to deal with all the contentions in view of the fact that disputed questions of fact are involved. Looking to the petition and affidavit-in-reply as well as rejoinder and in the light of the relevant record, it appears that the vehicle was detained on allegation that a goods vehicle used to carry goods was used for carrying passengers and thus, there was violation of law. In our opinion, such an action on the part of the authorities cannot be said to be unlawful or otherwise illegal.

( 5 ) IN this connection, it is necessary to note that the case of the respondent authorities is that the vehicle is owned by the appellant and is registered as delivery van. On November 5, 1995, when P. S. I. , Tharad checked the vehicle, the vehicle was carrying 11 passengers by collecting Rs. 5. 00 from each of them. Since it was not a passenger vehicle and could not have carried passengers, it was detained under Sec. 207 of the Act. It was also asserted in the affidavit-in-reply that 23 cases were pending in the department in respect of the vehicle in question. The appellant appeared before the second respondent on November 15, 1995 and had agreed to got the cases compounded including the last case of November 5, 1995. Accordingly, the cases were compounded and the appellant was asked to pay the amount of fine. As he did not pay the amount, the vehicle was not released. The action of the authorities, therefore, cannot be said to be contrary to law or unlawful.

( 6 ) IT was contended by Mr. Zaveri for the appellant that the authority had no power or jurisdiction to detain the vehicle. In our opinion, however, in the light of express provision in Sec. 207 of the Act, such a contention cannot be upheld and the learned Judge was right in rejecting the contention of the petitioner and in holding that the vehicle could have been detained.

( 7 ) MR. Zaveri, no doubt, stated that it is not t