Back
2000 Supreme(MP) 706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)
Bhawani Singh, Arun Mishra, J.
M.P. All India Tourist Permit Owners
Vs.
State of M.P. and Ors.
Writ Petition No. 2196/2000
Decided On: 09.08.2000
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: J.P. Gupta, Sr. Adv., A.K. Jain, M.S. Chouhan and B.K. Rawat, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant:V.K. Tankha, Adv. General for the Respondent No. 1 and Ravindra Shrivastava and Prem Francis, Advs. for the Respondent No. 2
Headnote:
The Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 is an enactment under Entry 56 and Entry 57 List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India; the Amendment Act (No. 27/99) is within the purview of Entries 56 and 57 and the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 or under Entry 35 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India; and the Amendment Act encroaches upon the field occupied by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it creates repugnancy with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in order to save it from being ultra vires and void it required prior assent of the President.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners are mostly bus operators. Some of them ply jeep etc. Their vehicles Buses, Jeeps have been seized and proceedings for confiscation of the vehicles under Sub-section (6) of Section 16 of Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 have been initiated by the Taxation Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 is an enactment under Entry 56 and Entry 57 List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India; the Amendment Act (No. 27/99) is within the purview of Entries 56 and 57 and the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 or under Entry 35 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India; and the Amendment Act encroaches upon the field occupied by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it creates repugnancy with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in order to save it from being ultra vires and void it required prior assent of the President.
Issues: 1. Whether Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 is an enactment under Entry 56 and Entry 57 List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India; whether the Amendment Act (No. 27/99) is within the purview of Entries 56 and 57 and the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 or under Entry 35 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India; and whether the Amendment Act encroaches upon the field occupied by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it creates repugnancy with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in order to save it from being ultra vires and void it required prior assent of the President? 2. Whether the Amendment Act (No. 27/99) encroaches upon the field occupied by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it creates repugnancy with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in order to save it from being ultra vires and void it required prior assent of the President? 3. Whether the Amendment Act No. 27/99 is, arbitrary and/or otherwise unconstitutional?
Ratio Decidendi: The Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 is an enactment under Entry 56 and Entry 57 List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India; the Amendment Act (No. 27/99) is within the purview of Entries 56 and 57 and the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 or under Entry 35 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India; and the Amendment Act encroaches upon the field occupied by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it creates repugnancy with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in order to save it from being ultra vires and void it required prior assent of the President.
Final Decision: The petitions are dismissed.
Arun Mishra, J.
1. This order shall also decide the bunch of Writ Petitions i.e. W.P. Nos. : 2591/2000 (Raj Kumar Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2603/2000 (Firoz Khan v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2639/2000 (Kanker Roadways and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2674/2000 (Damodar Prasad Asati v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2728/2000 (Smt. Manju Sahu v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2729/2000 (Hardeo Motor Transport Company v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2730/2000 (Kailash Narayan Rai and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2741/2000 (Mahendra Kumar Jain and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 2792/2000 (Ajinkya Air Bus Service v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2846/2000 (Gajraj Singh Chouhan v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2858/2000 (Smt. Sushila v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2869/2000 (Amrik Singh Sidhu v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2870/2000 (Sanjay Kumar Chourasia v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2945/2000 (Ajay Kumar Jaiswal v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 2988/2000 (Jaiprakash Sharma v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 3016/2000 (Durga Bus Service v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 3034/2000 (Vinod Kumar Sood v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 3064/2000 (Mohd. Hasan Khan and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.); 3094/2000 (Raju Pradhan v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 3383/2000 (Rajendra Prasad Garg v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 3703/2000 (Ashok Kumar Mishra v. State of M.P. and ors.) ; 3146/2000 (Janki Prasad Bisen v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; 3250/2000 (Ramu Pawar v. State of M.P.) ; 2641/2000 (Umesh Kumar Pathak v. State of M.P. and Ors.) ; and 3634/2000 (Bachchu Rohani v. State of M.P. and Ors.).
2. The petitions are aimed to strike out the provisions of Sub-sections (6), (7) and (8) of Section 16 and Sections 20-A and 20-B of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), inserted by The Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amendment Act 27 of 1999) published in Official Gazette dated 8th December, 1999, having received the assent of the Governor on 30th November, 1999. Under the newly incorporated Sub-section (6) of Section 16, if a vehicle is being plied without permit, the taxation authority, on receipt of report about seizure of the vehicle, has been empowered to confiscate the vehicle where he is satisfied that the owner has committed offence under Section 66 read with Section 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-section (7) prescribes safeguards before order of confiscation is passed. Sub-section (8) of Section 16 further provides safeguard that no confiscation shall be made if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Taxation Authority that the vehicle was used under valid documents required under the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 16 as inserted by the Amendment Act of 1999 puts an embargo on the Courts taking cognizance of the offence to release the vehicle which has been seized, and detained under Sub-section 3 of Section 16 of the Act. Clause (a) of Sub-section (7) of Section 16 provides for sending an intimation in the form prescribed about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of vehicle to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. On receipt of such an intimation in the prescribed form about initiation of proceedings for confiscation, Sub-section (5) of Section 16 comes into play and there is a bar on the Court to release such vehicle with respect to which confiscation proceeding has been initiated under Section 16, Sub-sections (5), (6), (7) and (8) of Section 16 incorporated by Amendment Act No. 27/99 are quoted hereunder:
"(5) Where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under Sub-section (3), the Court taking cognizance of the offence shall not release such vehicle.
(6) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (8), where, the taxation authority upon receipt of report about the seizure of the vehicle under Sub-section (3) is satisfied that the owner has committed offence under Section 66 read w
