ISHWAR SINGH BAGGA ABDUL MAJEED KHAN NAND LAL KABRA DAVINDER SINGH SURRSH KUMAR VAID Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in the writ petitions and appellants in the Civil Appeals are holders of contract carriage permits issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') carrying on business in the State of Rajasthan and other adjoining States. Under the said permits they are entitled to run the contract carriages throughout Rajasthan except on the notified routes. Some of them also own motor vehicles which are covered by permits issued under section 63(7) of the Act having the privilege of carrying passengers on cortract throughout India. In these Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals they have questioned the validity of the Notification dated 15-7-1975 issued by the State of Rajasthan under section 129-A of the Act empowering certain officers of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation*) to exercise in respect of all stage carriages and contract carriage on the notified routes under section 68-D (3) of the Act the powers that can be exercised under section 129-A of the Act by police officers who are empowered in that behalf. THE Notification read as follows :

(2.) THE petitioners/appellants contend that the officers of the Corporation named in the Notification who are very much interested in seeing that the Corporation earns much profit have been over-zealous in exercising the powers conferred on them under section 129-A of the Act and seizing and detaining the motor vehicles belonging to the petitioners/appellants contrary to law. THE principal contention urged by the petitioners/ appellants is that it was not open to the State Government to appoint persons who are not officers of the Government as persons who could exercise the powers of seizure and detention of property of citizens under section 129-A of the Act. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Krishna Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1985) 3 SCC 711 : (AIR 1985 SC 1651), it is contended that the appointment of the officers of the Corporation who are their rivals in motor transport business as officers entitled to exercise powers conferred under section 129-A of the Act was violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IN Transport Commr. Andhra Pradesh v. Sardar Ali, Bus Owner (1983) 3 SCR 729 : (AIR 1983 SC 1225) this Court has while upholding the constitutionality of section 129A of the Act explained its scope, manner and the different powers which are exercisable by an officer empowered under that section to exercise the powers mentioned therein. IN that case the appellant was the Transport Commissioner of the State of Andhra Pradesh and not the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Any police officer or other person authorized by the State Government under section 129-A of the Act may seize and detain a motor vehicle if he has reason to believe that the motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of section 22 of the Act. or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of section 42 of the Act, or in contravention of any conditions of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used. He is also to take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle. IN the first proviso to section 129-A of the Act such authorised officer may instead of seizing the vehicle seize the certificate of registration of vehicle and issue an acknowledgement in respect thereof. It further provides that where the motor vehicle has been seized or detained under the said section for contravention of the provisions of section 22 of the Act, such vehicle shall not be released to the owner unless and until he produces a valid certificate of registration under that Act in respect of that vehicle. The said powers can be exercised in respect of any motor vehicle such as an omnibus, a car, an auto-rikshaw, a tractor, a lorry etc. etc., the expression 'motor vehicle' having been defined by the Act in sub-section (18) of section 2 of the Act thus :