WP/38899/2013 of Hanumara Subhash Chandra Bose, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2013

ORDER:

With the consent of both Sri Rajanikanth Jwala, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport, this WritPetition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The action of the secondrespondent, in not releasing the vehicle seized under check report, isquestioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary and illegal. SriRajanikanth Jwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, would place relianceo n Shoukat Hussain v. Deputy Transport Commissioner andSecretary, Regional Transport Authority, Adilabad[[1]]and SaleemTours and Travels v. Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary,RTA, Hyderabad[[2]]in this regard.

In Shoukat Hussain[1] a learned Single Judge of this Court held that,on a conjoint reading of Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and Rule 448 of the Rules while a motor vehicle wasliable for being seized and detained, the owner of such vehicle is entitledto seek release of the seized vehicle subject to such terms and conditionsas the competent authority may impose pending further action to be taken;the owner of the vehicle is exposed both to civil liability as well aspenalties as envisaged under Section 192-A of the Act; but when theproceedings for imposing civil liability as well as the penalties arepending, the competent authority is not barred from exercising its powerof release the seized vehicle only on the ground of pendency of a criminalcase; in appropriate cases, the competent authority can always ensure thatits condition does not deteriorate further, and the owner is not put tofinancial losses on account of its detention.

In Saleem Tours[2], a Division Bench of this Court held that a vehicleplying in breach of the conditions of permit, as regards the purpose ofusage of the vehicle, can be seized under Section 207 of the Act and not under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act; thevehicle so seized cannot be detained until completion of enquiry under theTaxation Act and the payment of tax, if any, pursuant to the demand raised;the vehicle seized under Section 207 of the Act, on the ground ofcontravention of the conditions of permit, should not be detained for an

unduly long time; and on an application filed by the vehicle operator, thevehicle ought to be released with expedition subject to stipulation ofconditions to ensure non-alienation of the vehicle and production ofvehicle in connection with the enquiry, unless there were exceptionalcircumstances which make the release of vehicle frustrate the enquiry;such conditions may include furnishing of cash security of a reasonableamount which could be adjusted later on towards compounding fee or taxif any demanded; the demand of estimated tax, to be determined after dueenquiry under the provisions of the Taxation Act, or furnishing securitytherefor shall not be made a condition precedent for the release of thevehicle seized under Section 207 of the Act; in exceptional cases wherethere is reasonable apprehension that the vehicle will not be available fortaking further action or the ultimate order passed in the light of the enquirycannot be implemented on account of any special facts andcircumstances, the competent Transport authority can withhold release orstipulate appropriate conditions for release other than payment of tax notyet determined; in such a case, reasons must be recorded in writing; and,if the competent authority refuses to release the vehicle within areasonable time (within three days after the application is made in thisbehalf) or imposes onerous conditions, resort to the remedy under Article226 of the Constitution of India is permissible. It is open to the petitioner tofile an application to the second respondent seeking release of the vehicleand, if any such application is filed, the second respondent shall considerthe petitioner’s application in the light of the law declared by the DivisionBench in Saleem Tours, and the learned Single Judge in ShoukatHussain, and pass orders thereupon at the earliest in any event not laterthan three days from the date of receipt of a copy of the petitioner’sapplication.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneouspetitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be noorder as to costs.

___________________________

JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

Date: 31.12.2013Kkm

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

kkm

WRIT PETITION No.38899 of 2013Date: 31.12.2013

[1]

2012 (5) ALT 609

[2]2000 (4) ALD 501 (DB)