Honble MATHUR, J.–By these two writ petitions, constitutional validity of following portion of Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred-to as the ``Act of 1988, has been challenged:

``207. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit, etc.-(1) ``Any police officer or and words ....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....

(2). In short, Section 207 of the Act of 1988 empowers a police officer or an officer authorised by the State Government to seize a motor vehicle, if he has a reason to believe that the vehicle is being driven without registration or without permit or by a person who has no driving licence or plying on unauthorised route and the vehicle may be released only after satisfying that the vehicle complies-with a requirement of the provisions.

(3). In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2255/1998, it is averred by the petitioner that on 5.6.98 his five buses moving from Jodhpur to different destinations such as Udaipur, Ahmedabad etc. were seized by the police one after another by invoking the provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1988. The say of the petitioner is that it was done malafidely with a view to give a lesson to the petitioner as he had approached to this court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against seizure of the vehicle invoking the provisions of Section 34 of the Police Act. A certified copy of the order of this court being ``Pep Singh vs. State of Rajasthan(1) has been placed on record. As far as the factual aspect is concerned, it is pointed out by the respondents that the order Annex. 1 has nothing to do with the seizure of the vehicles on 5.6.98. The said Criminal Miscellaneous petition was filed by one Pep Singh against the action taken by the police under Section 34 of the Police Act. It is submitted that the petitioner with a calculated move to mislead the court, has referred-to the order Annex.1. It is submitted that the petitioner is carrying-on the business of travelling agency in the name of M/s Chandra Travels. He has obtained contract carriage permit from the Transport Officer, Jodhpur. He has been using the contract carriage permit as stage carriage permit by running the Video Coaches buses from Jodhpur to various cities like Udaipur, Ahmedabad etc. It is also averred that like petitioner, there are many other travelling agencies of this nature, which also undertakes, such kind of activities through Video Coaches Buses. They are plying the buses on the routes for which they do not have the stage carriage permit. They lift the passengers from the places, which come on the routes. They are running the Video Coaches in contravention of the provisions of Section 98 of the Act of 1988. It is also submi-tted that this has resulted in heavy revenue loss to the State Roadways Corporation as well as the State Government. In order to curb and stop their illegal action, the authorities of the State Government undertakes a special programme from time to time. Shri Chandan Dan, M.T.I. was attached with the programme vide order dated 29.07.1997. On 5.6.98 at about 5.30 A.M. On surprise checking he found Bus Nos. RJ 20 P-2601, RJ 19 P-3267, RJ 22 P-0492 and RJ 13 P-0635 operating on the permit of contract carriage. The operators were found plying the buses in contravention of the terms and conditions of the contract carriage permit and provisions of the Act of 1988. The operators/owners were asked by Shri Chandan Dan to show the documents like the Registration Certificates, Permits etc. but they refused to do so. Shri Chandan Dan was, therefore, forced to seize

Click Here to Read the rest of this document