2013 Supreme(Mad) 3746
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
S. Rajendra Prasad & Others
Versus
The Regional Transport Authority Cum The District Collector, Kanyakumari & Others
W.P.(MD) Nos.16650, 17684, 17685, 17689 & 17937 of 2013 & M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013 in W.P.(MD) No.17937 of 2013
Decided On : 05-11-2013
For the Petitioners:H. Velavadhas, T. Padmanabhan, N.S. Rama Krishnadass, P.T. Ramesh Raja, Advocates.
For the Respondents: T.S. Mohamed Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader.
The lack of a time limit for the release order under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act can lead to indefinite detention, violating the rights of the vehicle owner.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Detention of Vehicle - Section 207
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was seized for violation of permit conditions, and the petitioner sought its release through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Motor Vehicles Inspector had the power to detain the vehicle, but the lack of a time limit for the release order under Section 207(2) led to an indefinite detention, violating the petitioner's rights.
Issues: Detention of vehicle without a time limit for release order under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of a time limit for the release order under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act led to indefinite detention, violating the petitioner's rights.
Final Decision: The court directed the second respondent to pass an appropriate order for the release of the vehicle within two days, independent of any other action against the petitioner for permit violations.
1. In all these matters, since common issues have been raised, they are heard together and disposed of by means of this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, let me refer to the facts of the case in W.P.(MD) No.17937 of 2013.
3. In W.P.(MD) No.17937 of 2013, admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the Maxi Cab Van bearing registration No.TN 31 M 6043. The third respondent made an inspection of the said vehicle on 17.10.2013 at 6.30 p.m. and found that the vehicle was used in violation of the permit conditions. On that allegation, the vehicle was seized by the third respondent. Thereafter, for safe custody, it was handed over to the fourth respondent and now the vehicle is in the custody of the fourth respondent. While so, the petitioner has made representations on 18.10.2013 and 24.10.2013 to the respondents, seeking return of the vehicle to him. But, there has been no response. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court with this Writ Petition.
4. In W.P.(MD) No.17937 of 2013, it is mainly contended by the petitioner that respondents 2 to 4 have got no power to detain the vehicle for an indefinite period without passing any order under Sub Section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that detaining the vehicle for an indefinite period for the minor violation committed by the petitioner is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the third respondent is competent to seize the vehicle and such power is given to him under sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He would further submit that as per Rule 421 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the third respondent has been empowered to handover the vehicle to the officer in charge of the nearest Police Station, so as to keep it under safe custody until such time the Police Officer receives a release order from the authorised officer mentioned in sub-rule (2).
6. Here, in this case, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, since the fourth respondent is the officer in charge of the nearest Police Station, the third respondent handed over the vehicle to him. Now, according to him, it is for the second respondent (Regional Transport Officer) to pass appropriate order under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, releasing the vehicle to the petitioner. But so far, no such order has been passed.
7. I have considered the above submissions.
8. Before going into the factual aspects, let us have a look into Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows:
"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 of 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.
(2) Where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this