SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(All) 1408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. K. Sen, C. J. and Jagdish Bhalla, J.
JAGATPAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Writ Petition 5528 Of 2000
Decided On : 11/10/2000

Advocates Appeared:
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, R.B.Singh

The importance of following the statutory procedure and the lack of binding nature of mere orders without a laid down ratio.

Headnote:

CERTIORARI - Motor Vehicles Act - 207(1), 207(2) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides the power to detain vehicles used without a certificate of registration, permit, etc. The court emphasized that the remedy available to the petitioner is to apply to the transport authority or any authorized officer for the release of the vehicle in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Act. The court also highlighted the importance of following the procedure laid down by the statute and emphasized that mere orders without a laid down ratio do not have a binding nature.

S. K. SEN, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the challan of his vehicle (Vikram tempo No. UP 32 T 4341) dated 13. 09. 2000, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He has further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to release his above vehicle-The vehicle of the petitioner has been seized under Section 207 (1) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar cases, orders for release of the vehicle through Chief Judicial Magistrate have been passed by this Court earlier. In support, he has filed a copy of such order as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that under Section 207 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 power to release such vehicle has been given to the transport authority or any officer authorized in this behalf by the state Government and the Chief Judicial Magistrate has no power to release the vehicle.

( 3 ) WE have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also of the state counsel. Section 207 of the Act provides as follows :-

"207. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration, permit, etc.-- (1) Any police officer or other person authorized 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 acknowledgment 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 authorized in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose. "

( 4 ) FROM a perusal of Section 207 of the Act it appears that the remedy available to the petitioner is to apply to the transport authority or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State government together with relevant documents for the release of the vehicle in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Act. We are of the view that since statute provides power to release the vehicle on the concerned authority under subsection (2) of Section 207 of the Act on the application of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner should act according to the statute and take appropriate steps in terms of Section 207 (2) of the Act and make appropriate application before the concerned authority. We are of the further view that it is incumbent on the part of the parties to follow the procedure laid by the statute and we have no jurisdiction or authority to direct release of the vehicle through Chief Judicial Magistrate, with all respect to the other division Bench orders which have been passed from time to time which are not in the form of judgment and in fact no ratio has been laid down therein. It is well-settled that mere orders will not have binding nature unless a ratio has been laid down. This view finds support from the following decisi








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top