ORDER:
The writ petitioner herein seeks a writ of mandamus for declaring the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle bearing No. AP 29TB 3129 vide vehicle check report No. 730557 dated 17.12.2013 issued by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, 3 respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
Heard Sri. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Transport, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents herein.
It is agreed by both sides that the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself.
Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that for purpose of statistics and for purpose of impressing the higher officials of the department, the Motor Vehicles Inspectors are highhandedly, arbitrarily and indiscriminately checking the vehicles and seizing some of those vehicles without there being any justifiable reason or cause. Therefore, he would submit that the vehicle so seized shall be released immediately at any rate subject to the conditions specified by this Court in the judgment rendered in W.P. No. 38326 of 2013 on 27.12.2013. It is also the case of the Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, that all other learned single Judges of this Court are faithfully following the directives contained in the aforementioned judgment.
Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Transport has raised a fundamental objection. He would submit that the writ petitioner without first of all approaching the competent authority specified in Section 207 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot institute writ petition in this Court. He would point out that under sub-section(1) section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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.
Learned Government Pleader for Transport would, therefore, specifically point out that without the petitioner, approaching and applying to the transport authority or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government with all the relevant documents for the release of such vehicle in terms of sub-section(2) of Section 207 cannot rush to this court and file this writ petition. Learned Government Pleader for Transport would place reliance on two judgments of Division Bench of this Court rendered in “M. Venkateswara Rao v. Secretary, R.T.A., Warangal” (2000 (1) ALT 170) and G. Nagaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2000 Andhra Pradesh 442).
It is true that in the judgment rendered in 2000 (1) ALT 170, the Division Bench of this Court indicated that the vehicle owner should first approach the concerned Transport authority for the release of the vehicle by filing an application under Section 207(2) read with the Rules and this Court also directed that such application should be dealt with, with utmost expedition and if no orders are passed within three days, the aggrieved person can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.
It is also true that in the judgment reported in AIR 2000 Andhra Pradesh 442, the Division Bench has also set out that there was absolute propriety in conferring the power on the Secretary, R.T.A., who is the highest officer of the Transport Department in the District under sub-section(2) of Section 207.
The Division Bench then proceeded to observe as under:
“The approach of such higher officer could be expected to be more objective and unbiased. Thus, while we see no illegality or arbitrariness in conferring the power on the Secretary, R.T.A. to consider applications for release, at the same time, we would like to make it clear that nothing precludes the vehicle driver or operator from approaching the checking officer then and there at the spot where the vehicle is detained. If the checking Officer is convinced on the basis of the documents or the other evidence produced that the vehicle need not be seized, it is open to such Officer to allow the vehicle to proceed, without prejudice to any further action. We would like to clarify that the mere fact that the power to release the vehicle after the seizure is vested with the Secretary, R.T.A. does not mean that the checking officer has no choice but to seize the vehicle irrespective of the nature of violations or the satisfaction that may be reached by him on the basis of the documents or other evidence produced, soon after the check if not immediately.”
Now the question that needs to be addressed is whether the provisions of Section 207 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 get attracted to a case of this nature.
Section 207 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specifically mentioned about the contraventions relating to Sections 3, 4, 39 and 66 and the power to seize and detain the vehicle. Earlier thereto in Section 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 power is conferred to punish any person whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Sections 113 or 114 or 115 with minimum fine of two thousand rupees and an additional amount of one thousand rupees per tonne of excess of load, together with the liability to pay charges for off-loading of the excess load. Sections 113, 114 and 115 in turn deal with the various aspects relating to limits of weight and limitations on use, power to have vehicle weighed, and power to restrict the use of vehicles. Importantly, these sections fall in Chapter VIII of the Act. Section 194 is forming part of Chapter XIII of the Act, which dealt with offences, penalties and procedure. Section 207 is also forming part of the same chapter. Therefore, the legislature has contemplated to deal with two distinct and separate sets of violations and hence conferred separate and independent powers and for that purpose, two separate provisions have been carved out i.e. one under Section 194 and another is Section 207 of the Act. In this view of the matter, for the alleged contravention of the provisions contained in Section 194 of the Act, perhaps the party can as well approach the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, but nonetheless not approaching the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority seeking release of the seized vehicle for the alleged violation contemplated by Section 194, cannot be considered, therefore, as a bar for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the principle behind the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, upon which the learned Government Pleader for Transport placed reliance, will not get attracted to cases of present nature. Hence, it is, therefore, appropriate to reiterate the directions issued by this Court in W.P. 38326 of 2013 rendered on 27.12.2013, which are to the following effect:
“The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority concerned is directed to consider release of the subject vehicle forthwith to the petitioner on their fulfillment of the following conditions:
1) The petitioner shall deposit Rs. 2,000/- and an additional amount of Rs. 1,000/- per tonne of excess load;
2) The petitioner shall also pay the charges, intimated to them by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority concerned, for off-loading of the excess permissible weight;
3) The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to produce the subject vehicle as and when required to be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate; and
4) The petitioner shall file proof of ownership and other valid documents including the proof of payment of the tax due before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority concerned.”
The commissioner for Transport shall immediately communicate, through a circular, instructions to all checking officials that wherever and whenever the contraventions of Section 194 of Motor Vehicles Act are booked, an option must be made available to the driver/owner, accompanier of such vehicle, to opt for payment of the penalties specified supra instantaneously for the release of the vehicle as an interim measure, instead of seizing the same. However, it shall not be considered as preventing the State and its officials from taking further action thereafter in accordance with law for the alleged violation of the provisions contained in Section 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
The Commissioner for Transport, shall file compliance report before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
With this order the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.