Allowed

S. Ratheesh, v. the District Collector

Madras HC21 Nov 2013WP(MD)/18299/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the indefinite detention of a vehicle seized for permit violations under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act due to inaction by the second respondent. The Court held that while seizure is lawful, detention without an order under Section 207(2) violates constitutional rights and directed immediate release. The appeal was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Regional Transport Officer to pass an order under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act within two days for the release of the petitioner's vehicle.

S. Ratheesh, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.11.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.18299 of 2013

¶7

S.Ratheesh ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari. 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Motor Vehicle Inspector (Grade I) Regional Transport Office, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Kulasekaran Police Station, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer: This Writ Petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle TATA Maxi Cab Van bearing Registration No. TN 74 Q 4456, which was seized by the 3rd respondent on 24.10.2013 and now detained in the custody of the 4th respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja For Respondents: Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner is the owner of the TATA Maxi Cab Van bearing Registration No. TN 74 Q 4456. The third respondent made an inspection of the said vehicle on 24.10.2013 at 6.15 p.m. and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ found that the vehicle was used in violation of the permit conditions. On that allegation, the vehicle was seized by the

¶12

¶13

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 a representation on 30.10.2013 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.

¶14

2.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.

¶15

3.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).

¶16

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.

¶17

I have considered the above submissions.

¶18

Before going into the factual aspects, let us have a look into Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows:

¶19

"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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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

¶20

¶21

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:

¶22

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.

¶23

(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 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."

¶24

A close reading of the above provision would make it clear that the third respondent-Motor Vehicles Inspector has got power to detain the vehicle on the allegation that there had been certain contravention of the conditions of permit. After such seizure, the vehicle has to be detained in the prescribed manner. (vide sub section (1) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.)

¶25

The term 'prescribed' has been defined under sub-section 32 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as 'prescribed' means by rules made under this Act. The manner has been prescribed under Rule 421 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which reads follows:

¶26

"421.(1) Any motor vehicle detained under section 207 shall be handed-over to the police officer incharge of the nearest police station and such police officer shall keep the vehicle under safe custody until such time such officer receives a release order from the authorised officer mentioned in sub-rule (2).

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

(2) The Regional Transport Officer in whose area the vehicle is detained shall be the

¶29

¶30

authorised officer for the issue of an order of release under sub-section (2) of Section 207.

¶31

(3) The Officers to recover the penalty for causing obstruction to free flow of traffic under section 201 shall be any police officer in uniform not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police."

¶32

9.From the reading of the above Rule, one could understand that it speaks of the manner in which the vehicle is to be detained. As per the said provision, it can be detained in a safe custody of the police officer in charge of the nearest police station. The Rule further states that such detention can extend up to the time of passing an order under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the transport authority, namely, the second respondent herein. But sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which empowers the transport authority to pass order of release of the vehicle does not prescribe any time limit for such order. The said provision is also silent as to how to dispose of the vehicle, if the vehicle is not claimed by its owner or if it is not released by the Transport Authority under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶33

The learned Additional Government Pleader is not in a position to say as to how the vehicle would be disposed of either by the police officer in charge of the nearest police station or any other authority. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that he would bring the same to the notice of the Government to bring in necessary amendment to the Rules, prescribing necessary time limit and also the manner of disposal of the vehicle.

¶34

So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is not explained as to why the second respondent has not passed any order on the request of the petitioner for release of the vehicle, it is probably because no time limit has been prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The second respondent has been under the impression that he can pass orders under this provision at his own whims and fancies at any number of months time.

¶35

In view of the above, I am inclined to allow this Writ Petition directing the second respondent to pass appropriate order under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for release of the vehicle to the petitioner, if he satisfies all the legal requirements. This release of the vehicle is independent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of any other action which may be taken by the respondent against the petitioner for violation of the permit conditions.

¶36

¶37

It is also suggested to the Government to look into the above anomaly discussed herein above and to make suitable amendments to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 14.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013 is closed. No costs.

¶38

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari. 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Motor Vehicle Inspector (Grade I) Regional Transport Office, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Kulasekaran Police Station, Kanyakumari District. +One cc to M/s.P.T.Ramesh Raja, Advocate, SR.No.57235 vs RL/6 c- 3/12/2013 W.P.(MD)No.18299 of 2013 21.11.2013

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S. Ratheesh, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Ratheesh, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Raman, Vs the Principal Secretary to

M.Rajasekharan, Vs the Principal Secretary to -

S.Ramanujam, Vs Govt. of Tamilnadu

B.Maheswaran Vs the Tamil Nadu Generation and

S.M.M. Aru. Alamelu Vs the District Collector

S. Shanmuga Ananthi, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu