WP/39054/2013 of SAI Anjana Tours and Travels, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal on 31 December 2013

ORDER:

With the consent of both Sri Rajanikanth Jwala, learned counsel for thepetitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Transport, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The action of the second respondent, innot releasing the vehicle seized under check report, is questioned in this WritPetition as being arbitrary and illegal. Sri Rajanikanth Jwala, learned counsel forthe petitioner, would place reliance on Shoukat Hussain v. Deputy TransportCommissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Adilabad[[1]]a n d Saleem Tours and Travels v. Joint Transport Commissioner andSecretary, RTA, Hyderabad[[2]]in this regard.

In Shoukat Hussain[1] a learned Single Judge of this Court held that, on aconjoint 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 was liable for beingseized and detained, the owner of such vehicle is entitled to seek release ofthe seized vehicle subject to such terms and conditions as the competentauthority may impose pending further action to be taken; the owner of the vehicleis exposed both to civil liability as well as penalties as envisaged under Section192-A of the Act; but when the proceedings for imposing civil liability as well asthe penalties are pending, the competent authority is not barred from exercisingits power of release the seized vehicle only on the ground of pendency of acriminal case; in appropriate cases, the competent authority can always ensurethat its 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 vehicle plyingin breach of the conditions of permit, as regards the purpose of usage of thevehicle, can be seized under Section 207 of the Act and not under Section 8 ofthe Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act; the vehicle so seized cannotbe detained until completion of enquiry under the Taxation Act and the paymentof tax, if any, pursuant to the demand raised; the vehicle seized under Section207 of the Act, on the ground of contravention of the conditions of permit, shouldnot be detained for an unduly long time; and on an application filed by thevehicle operator, the vehicle ought to be released with expedition subject tostipulation of conditions 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; suchconditions may include furnishing of cash security of a reasonable amount whichcould be adjusted later on towards compounding fee or tax if any demanded; the

demand of estimated tax, to be determined after due enquiry under the provisionsof the Taxation Act, or furnishing security therefor shall not be made a conditionprecedent for the release of the vehicle seized under Section 207 of the Act; inexceptional cases where there is reasonable apprehension that the vehicle willnot be available for taking further action or the ultimate order passed in the light ofthe enquiry cannot 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 not yetdetermined; in such a case, reasons must be recorded in writing; and, if thecompetent authority refuses to release the vehicle within a reasonable time(within three days after the application is made in this behalf) or imposesonerous conditions, resort to the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia is permissible. It is open to the petitioner to file an application to the secondrespondent seeking release of the vehicle and, if any such application is filed, thesecond respondent shall consider the petitioner’s application in the light of thelaw declared by the Division Bench in Saleem Tours, and the learned SingleJudge in Shoukat Hussain, and pass orders thereupon at the earliest in anyevent not later than three days from the date of receipt of a copy of the petitioner’sapplication.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous petitionspending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

DATE: 31.12.2013TVK/KKM

________________

P.NAVEEN RAO,J

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

[1]2012 (5) ALT 609

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

WRIT PETITION No. 39054 of 2013

Date: 31.12.2013