A VINAYAGAM Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER MANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P.No. 17471 of 1985 is the registered owner of a tourist vehicle bearing regn No. AAG 6111registered in Andhra Pradesh. THE said vehicle was being operated at the relevant time on a special permit issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor. On 4-11-1985 when the vehicle was checked near Seelnere by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Mandya, it was found that tourists from Hoskote were being carried on a special permit issued by the RTA., Chittoor. THE vehicle was seized on the basis of the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner for Transport. This Court issued rule on 8-11-1985 and directed release of the vehicle on the petitioner furnishing Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.

(2.) 500/-.The vehicle of the petitioner in Writ Petition No 5555/86 was seized on 15 10 1985 at Nippani Checkpost and on a deposit of Rs. 11,000/- plus Rs. 2500/- compounding fee being made, the vehicle was released The seizure was so made on the basis of circular instructions issued by the Commissioner for Transport. The question that arises for consideration in these cases is, whether the seizure by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles made in these cases relying on the Circular issued by the Commissioner for Transport was with authority of law? The petitioner's contention is that a special permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor, under Section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act authorised the petitioner to pickup tourists in the State of Karnataka and there was no prohibition in the Motor Vehicles Act for issue of such permits by the Regional Transport Authorities of one State to operate the vehicle wholly or partly in another State. Sri C. N.Achar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the decision of this Court in the case of M.K. Sathyanaraysna Rao v Asst. Regional Transport Officer (1987 BLJ 148) in which the competency of the RfA, Ananthapur in Andhra Pradesh to issue a permit under Section 63(6) to operate wholly in the State of Karnataka. was upheld by this Court (by MPCJ). This Court held that the provisions of Section 63(6) do not prohibit issue of a special permit to operate outside the State. So holding, this Court further said that the vehicles covered by such permits are entitled for exemption from payment of Motor Vehicle Tax to the State of Karnataka by virtue of the Notification dated 22-11-1962 issued by the State Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 16(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Taxation) Act. In another decision of this Court (by KASJ) in the case of Narayana Bhalta v Secretary, -Regional Transport Authority (ILR 1985(2) Karnataka- 4147) similar contention of the State about the validity of such permits was rejected and the Secretary, RTA, Bangalore was directed to issue special permit to the petitioner under Section 63(6) of the Molor Vehicles Act, to carry tourists from Madras to Tirupathi and back and for taking the vehicleto Madras empty, for this purpose. Sri Dattu, the learned High Court Govt. Pleader has argued that it is not competent for the RTA of one State to grant a special permit under Section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act to operate wholly or partly outside the region or State and hence the seizure effected by this State was justified. The learned Counsel also brings to my notice that the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Shaikhshawalli and others v Secretary, RTA., Ananthapur (AIR 1982 A.P. 296) has been approved by the Supreme Court in1988 S.C. 2047 (Achyut Shivaram Gokhale v Regional transport Officer and Others). It is, therefore, argued by Sri Dallu that on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the RTA of one State cannot issue special permits authorising the operation of the vehicle in another State mak.ng it the starting point for the journey. It is also brought to my notice that the State Govt. has issued a Notification revoking the concession granted to such vehicles in the year 19G2, by Notification dated 12-8-1938. The said Notification reads thus :