Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Shankar M. Tingote v. State Of Maharashtra And Others

Bombay High Court

Mar 7, 2000

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner is the registered owner of a 1982 model commercial light vehicle (Mahindra mini truck No. MWP 1339) purchased with financial assistance from the Bank of Maharashtra, Mill Corner Branch, Aurangabad, and subject to a hire-purchase agreement with Marathwada Development Corporation and the Bank of Maharashtra. On 24 July 1987 the petitioner states he parked the vehicle near Siddarth Garden, opposite the Central Bus Stand; upon returning from a brief absence he found the vehicle missing. On enquiry he learned the vehicle had been towed by the traffic police and taken to the Kranti Chowk Police Station.

The petitioner alleges he repeatedly approached the Kranti Chowk Police Station and the City Traffic Branch seeking release of the vehicle, and submitted written applications (dated 3-10-1988 to respondent No. 3 received 16-11-1988, and dated 8-11-1988 to respondent No. 4 received 18-11-1988) requesting immediate release or, alternatively, a certificate of non-use to claim exemption from payment of road tax. Receiving no relief, he filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions that include (i) release of the vehicle after technical examination, (ii) directions to the Regional Transport Officer (R.T.O.) to submit the file and report, and (iii) costs and other relief as the Court may deem fit.

Over approximately thirteen years of litigation activity before the Court, the file became voluminous. Affidavits filed by various officials contained inconsistent statements: an Assistant R.T.O. initially asserted the vehicle had been attached for non-payment of road tax from 1-9-1985 and would be released on verification and payment of arrears; a later affidavit by the same official denied knowledge of the vehicle being in Kranti Chowk Police Station or of any attachment by the R.T.O. The Traffic Police (respondent No. 4) filed an affidavit denying seizure or attachment of the vehicle by traffic police and stating that, if attached, a vehicle would be taken to City Chowk Police Station, not Kranti Chowk. The Inspector of Kranti Chowk Police Station stated there was no record/entry for the vehicle in that station and that the traffic police branch also had no record. Despite these denials, the vehicle had been physically present in the Kranti Chowk Police Station compound from July 1987 to the date of the judgment.

The Court directed the R.T.O. and the Police Commissioner, Aurangabad, to file affidavits on why monetary compensation should not be paid by the State for tortious acts of employees/officers, and directed the Branch Manager of the Bank of Maharashtra, Mill Corner, to assist the Court in determining the loan-recovery position. The Bank Manager appeared and stated the principal loan amount was Rs. 70,700, repayments made had been adjusted against interest, a Special Civil Suit had been decreed (Special Civil Suit No. 149 of 1985 decreed on 22-2-1990) with execution pending, and the petitioner had not paid road tax from 1-9-1985.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the continued detention/keeping of the petitioner's vehicle in the Kranti Chowk Police Station premises (from July 1987 onward) amounted to an unlawful deprivation of the petitioner's livelihood and thus a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to release of the vehicle (after technical examination) and other ancillary reliefs he sought in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the State should be directed to pay monetary compensation to the petitioner for losses, damages and deprivation caused by the alleged illegal acts of police/other State employees, and the manner in which such compensation should be apportioned.
Whether an enquiry should be ordered to identify the police officers/personnel responsible for the illegal detention and to recover compensation from them.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Contentions

The petitioner contends that his vehicle was towed by traffic police on 24-7-1987 and kept at Kranti Chowk Police Station, and despite his repeated approaches the vehicle was not released.
He submitted written applications requesting immediate release or alternatively a certificate of non-use so that he could claim exemption from road tax; these requests were ignored.
He claimed loss of livelihood and financial injury arising from the prolonged detention of the vehicle and sought release, directions to R.T.O., and compensation.

Regional Transport Officer / Assistant R.T.O. (Respondent No. 2)

In an affidavit dated 16-6-1989, the Assistant R.T.O. (Shri D.M. Gunjakar) stated the petitioner failed to pay road tax from 1-9-1985 onwards and the vehicle was attached by the R.T.O.; release would have been on verification of ownership and payment of tax arrears.
In a subsequent affidavit dated 3-2-1997 the same officer stated the R.T.O. office had no knowledge of the vehicle lying in Kranti Chowk Police Station and that the R.T.O. office had not seized the vehicle—this statement contradicted the earlier affidavit.

Respondent No. 4 / Traffic Police Branch

Respondent No. 4's affidavit stated the subject vehicle was not picked up, attached or taken to Kranti Chowk Police Station by the traffic police at Aurangabad.
The affidavit advised that when a vehicle is attached by traffic police it would be taken to the premises of City Chowk Police Station, not Kranti Chowk, and denied the allegations made against the officer.
A letter dated 6-3-2000 from the Traffic Police Branch stated they had neither attached the vehicle nor had any record concerning it.

Kranti Chowk Police Station (Inspector Shrikant Mahajan)

The Inspector stated there was no entry in the Kranti Chowk Police Station record for the subject vehicle and, upon enquiry with the Traffic Police Branch, there was no record with them either.

Bank of Maharashtra (Branch Manager, Mill Corner Branch)

The Bank Manager informed the Court that the principal loan amount advanced to the petitioner was Rs. 70,700; repayments by the petitioner had been adjusted against interest.
The Manager also indicated that Special Civil Suit No. 149 of 1985 had been decreed on 22-2-1990 and execution proceedings were pending before the competent court.
The Bank confirmed the petitioner's default on road tax payments since 1-9-1985.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the documentary record, affidavits and the history of the matter and made the following analytical findings:

Factual finding: The vehicle had been physically lying in the premises of Kranti Chowk Police Station from July 1987 up to the date of the judgment. This fact remained despite official denials and inconsistent affidavit statements from R.T.O. and police officials.
Adverse procedural history: Over approximately thirteen years, no steps were taken by the responsible authorities to release or evict the vehicle, and the Court noted the voluminous order-sheet and lack of remedial action by State functionaries.
Contradictions in official accounts: The Court noted contradictory affidavits by the same R.T.O. official (initially stating attachment by R.T.O. for tax default; later denying knowledge), and denials by traffic police and Kranti Chowk police that did not reconcile with the physical presence of the vehicle.
Legal principle applied: The Court held that taking away a citizen's livelihood or source of income by State officers without lawful authority amounted to deprivation of fundamental rights protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The prolonged detention of the vehicle constituted grave economic injury to the petitioner.
Jurisdictional basis: The Court invoked its writ jurisdiction and inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to redress the violation and to pass appropriate orders to do justice to the petitioner.
Remedial measures decided: Before finalizing compensation, the Court directed the R.T.O. and the Police Commissioner to file affidavits on why monetary compensation should not be awarded and asked the Bank Branch Manager to assist in determining loan recovery. Following consideration of submissions and the Bank Manager's statement, the Court determined appropriate compensation and apportionment and directed institutional follow-up (enquiry to identify responsible officers and recovery from them).
Administrative directions: The Court mandated timelines — deposit of compensation by the Collector within six weeks, and completion of enquiry to identify responsible officers and recover compensation within preferably six months— and assigned the Additional Registrar responsibility for apportionment of the compensation as directed.

Holding and Implications

Final Holding: The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed the State of Maharashtra to pay compensation of Rs. Two Lakhs to the petitioner by way of damages for illegal acts of police officials in detaining the petitioner's vehicle and thereby depriving him of his livelihood.

Direct consequences and apportionment (as ordered by the Court):

The Collector of Aurangabad was directed to deposit the Rs. Two Lakhs in the Court within six weeks.
The compensation was to be apportioned as follows:
1. Payment of arrears of road tax for two years;
2. Payment of Rs. 70,700 to the Bank of Maharashtra against the principal loan amount advanced to the petitioner;
3. The balance amount to be deposited in a Nationalized Bank in the joint names of the petitioner's two sons (Ravindra and Rajendra), with interest accruing thereon to be withdrawn by the petitioner quarterly; the deposit to be for an initial period of five years.
The State (through the Divisional Commissioner at Aurangabad) was directed to institute an enquiry to identify the police officers/personnel responsible for the illegal detention and to recover the compensation amount from those officers/personnel; the enquiry was to be completed preferably within six months.
The Additional Registrar of the Court was made responsible for implementing the apportionment of the compensation.
Copies of the order were to be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Collector and the Divisional Commissioner at Aurangabad.

Broader implications: The opinion remedies the petitioner's grievance by monetary compensation and administrative directions. The Court expressly grounded relief in a violation of Article 21 and invoked Article 226 powers; the opinion does not purport to set out or discuss any new legal precedent beyond the order made. The direct effect is the grant of monetary relief, directions for apportionment, an enquiry to fix responsibility and mechanisms to recover compensation from responsible officers.

Show all summary ...

Marlapalle, J.:— The petitioner is a registered owner of a commercial light vehicle (Mahindra mini truck bearing No. MWP 1339) and the said vehicle was purchased under financial assistance by the Bank of Maharashtra, Mill Corner Branch at Aurangabad in the year 1982. It had a capacity of two tonnes for goods carriage and the vehicle was subject to the hire purchase agreement with the Marathwada Development Corporation at Aurangabad, as well as the Bank of Maharashtra, Mill Corner Branch.

2. The petitioner claims that on 24-7-87 he had parked the said vehicle some times in the morning, opposite Siddarth garden near the Central Bus Stand and with two of his friends he had gone for tea. When he came back after tea, he found his vehicle missing from the place where it was parked. On enquiries he learnt that the subject vehicle was towed by the traffic police and taken to the Kranti Chowk Police Station. He thereafter, claims to have approached the Police Sub-Inspector of Kranti Chowk Police Station as well as the Sub-Inspector of the City Traffic Branch. He specifically states that he approached both respondent No. 4 as well as Kranti Chowk Police Station from time to time and his vehicle was not released. He submitted a written application dated 3-10-1988 to respondent No. 3 on 16-11-1988 and an application dated 8-11-1988 to the respondent No. 4 which was received by the Kranti Chowk Police Station on 18-11-1988. In both these applications he requested for release of the vehicle forthwith and in the alternative to give a certificate of its non use, as it was parked at the Kranti Chowk Police Station from 24-7-87, so that he would be entitled for claiming exemption for payment of road tax. These requests went on deaf ears. He therefore, approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and praying for directions against the concerned authorities. His substantive prayers are as under:—

(i) To direct the respondent No. 4 to release the Mini-truck No. MWP 1339 after it is duly examined technically;

(ii) To direct the respondent No. 2 to Regional Traffic Officer, Aurangabad to submit the file and report before this Court;

(iii) To allow to petition with costs and in any other suitable relief as this Court deems fit.

3. During the last 11 years while the petition has been pending before this Court the order sheet has become voluminous and in a petition of 9 pages the order sheet itself is about 45 pages and it must be noted with regret that no steps were taken to release the vehicle lying idle in the Kranti Chowk Police Station for whatever reasons and for the fault attributable to whosoever person. It is a 1982 model commercial vehicle and by nowit is hopelessly converted into junk with the courtesy of the Government Officers namely the officers from the Regional Transport Office and the police. The first affidavit has been filed by one Shri D.M Gunjakar, then working as Assistant R.T.O at Aurangabad, on 16-6-1989 and it is clear on the perusal of the said affidavit that the petitioner failed to pay the road tax in respect of the subject vehicle for the period from 1-9-1985 onwards and it was attached by the R.T.O As and when the petitioner approached the R.T.O office, he was informed that the same would be released on verification of ownership on the basis of the concerned documents and after payment of the arrears of tax. The said Shri Gunjakar, has filed another affidavit on 3-2-1997 and taken an about turn. He states in his affidavit that the respondent No. 2 (R.T.O Office) does not have any knowlege of the said vehicle lying in the compound of Kranti Chowk Police Station and as per the letter dated 8-3-1989 received from the said Police Station, the vehicle was kept in front of its premises. He is particular in stating that the R.T.O office had not seized the subject vehicle. This statement is contradicatoiy to the statement made in the earlier affidavit filed on 16-6-1989. We also have an affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 which clearly states that the subject vehicle was not picked up or attached or taken to the Kranti Chowk Police Station for whatsoever reasons by the traffic police at Aurangabad. He further states that if and when a vehicle is attached by the traffic police, it is taken to the premises of the City Chowk Police Station and there was no reason for the vehicle to be taken to the Kranti Chowk Police Station. The said officer has denied the allegations made by the petitioner against him. Then we have one more affidavit filed by one Shri Shrikant Mahajan, Police Inspector of the Kranti Chowk Police Station. He states that on verification of the record in that Police Station, there was no entry in respect of the subject vehicle lying in the compound of his Police Station. He further states that on enquiry with the traffic Police branch at Aurangabad, he was informed that there was no entry or record in respect of the subject vehicle with them. Mr. Choudhary, learned A.P.P on our specific orders has taken instructions from the Traffic Police Branch at Aurangabad and as per the letter dated 6-3-2000, it is clear that the Traffic Police Branch has neither attached the vehicle nor there is any record with the said branch in respect of the subject vehicle.

4. The fact however, remains that the subject vehicle has been lying in the premises of the Kranti Chowk Police Station right from July, 1987 till this date and it is rather shocking to note that the authorities responsible for the Kranti Chowk Police Station did not take any steps to evict the subject vehicle from their premises for almost 2 years and when the petitioner approached this Court, a specious ground is put forth stating that as the petition was pending before this Court, the vehicle was not released. It is not known as yet, and we are sorry to observe that neither the officers from the Regional Transport Office nor the officers under the Police Commissionerate, Aurangabad have been able to explain, as to how this vehicle had reached the Kranti Chowk Police Station and how it is lying there for the last 13 years. It is common knowledge that the Regional Transport Office at Aurangabad is located in a huge premises and it has sufficient open space to park such vehicles if they are attached by the said authority. The petitioner is therefore, justified in approaching this Court, not only for the release of the vehicle but even for seeking compensation for loss of damage in his earnings and also in default for payment of the Bank loan advanced by the Bank of Maharashtra for the purchase of the said vehicle and we are satisfied that these prayers are required to be considered by us.

5. Before we pass any order determining the amount of compensation, both for damages, loss as well as for the liability of the loan repayment, we deem it appropriate to hear the parties concerned namely, the Regional Transport Officer and the Police Commissioner, Aurangabad. We therefore, direct them to file an affidavit if they wish to do so, as to why the petitioner should not be granted monetary compensation to be paid by the State for the tortuous acts of its employees/officers. We also direct the Branch Manager of the Bank of Maharashtra, Mill Corner, to remain present before us for assisting us to work out the final amount of loan recovery from the petitioner in respect of the said vehicle, on the next date. A copy of this order be sent to the said Branch Manager, by the Registry forthwith.

S.O to 14-3-2000.

6. The Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Mill Corner Branch, Aurangabad, had appeared before us today and pointed out that the principal amount advanced as loan to the petitioner was Rs. 70,700/- and whatever amount the petitioner has repaid has been adjusted against the interest. He also pointed out that Special Civil Suit No. 149 of 1985 has been decreed on 22-2-1990 and execution proceedings are pending before the Competent Court. In addition, the petitioner had not paid the road tax in respect of the subject vehicle from 1-9-1985.

7. We have no hesitation to hold that taking away the livelihood or the source of income of a citizen by the officers of the State and that too without authority of law amounts to deprivation of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the action of detaining the vehicle in the manner as has been pointed out in the earlier paragraphs of our judgment does amount to a grave economic injury to the petitioner at the hands of the State authorities. The petitioner, therefore, deserves to be compensated suitably for loss of livelihood, loss of financial earnings and agony he has gone through during the last about thirteen years or so. The Respondent No. 2 has taken a specific stand that the subject vehicle was not seized or detained by any officers from his department and the Commissioner of Police at Aurangabad inspite of opportunities granted by this Court has not filed any reply till this date. Admittedly, the subject vehicle has been lying in the premises of the Kranti Chowk Police Station for the last about thirteen years. This is a fit case where we must invoke our inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and pass appropriate orders to do jsutice to the petitioner who was denied of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

8. In the result, we allow the writ petition and direct the State of Maharashtra to pay compensation of Rs. Two Lakhs to the petitioner by way of damages on account of illegal acts of the police officials in detaining the vehicle of petitioner and taking away his livelihood. The said amount be deposited by the Collector of Aurangabad in this Court within a period of six weeks from today. The amount of compensation “shall be apportioned as under:—

(A) Payment of arrears of road tax for two years.

(B) Amount of Rs. 70,700.be paid to the Bank of Maharashtra against the principal amount of loan advanced to the petitioner for purchase of the subject vehicle.

(C) The balance amount shall be deposited in a Nationalized Bank in the joint names of petitioner's two sons, namely — Ravindra and Rajendra and the interest accruing thereon shall be withdrawn by the petitioner at every quarter. The deposit shall be initially for a period of five years.

9. We direct the State of Maharashtra through the Divisional Commissioner at Aurangabad to institute an enquiry so as to identify the police officers/personnel responsible for the illegal detention of the subject vehicle and recover the amount of compensation so paid from the concerned officers/personnel. This enquiry should be completed preferably within a period of six months from today.

10. The Additional Registrar of this Court shall be responsible for the apportionment of the amount of compensation as directed hereinabove.

11. Rule made absolute in terms of the above order. Copies of this order be forwarded forthwith to the Commissioner of Police, Collector and the Divisional/Commissioner at Auranagabad.

12. Order accordingly.