HARISHBHAI LAXMANBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the action of respondent No. 3 police sub-inspector Jawahar Chowk Chowky Sabarmati seizing the petitioner s autorickshaw No. G.R.T. 77 on the allegation that at the time of its seizure the said rickshaw was driven rashly and negligently and contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioner contends that the third respondent has no power to seize the said rickshaw especially on the ground that at the relevant time more than permissible number of passengers were being carried in the said rickshaw.

(2.) In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner in its full perspective it would be desirable to quickly glance through a few relevant facts leading to this petition. The petitioner owns an autorickshaw No. G.R.T. 77. It is an owner-driven rickshaw and the petitioner himself plies the same. The petitioner is having a regular driving licence and a permit is given by the competent authority enabling the petitioner to ply the said rickshaw in the city of Ahmedabad as a passenger-rickshaw. The number of the said permit is 27598 and it is valid upto 1-1-1985. The case of the petitioner is that on 3-6-1982 at about 10.45 p. m. the petitioner was driving his rickshaw near Sabarmati Toll Naka. That he had started from S.T. stand near the Sabarmati Toll Naka and was proceeding towards Chandkheda. At that time there were five passengers in his rickshaw. Out of these five passengers two were sick and were suffering from sun-stroke and vomitting. All these five passengers were in one group and they requested him to take them in one rickshaw and to take them to their residence at Chandkheda. The case of the petitioners is that looking to the entreaty made by the passengers and looking to the urgency of the matter as two passengers were sick he allowed all the passengers to be carried in his rickshaw and he drove on the vehicle. After he started his rickshaw and drove it for some time respondent No. 3 followed the rickshaw on his scooter and intercepted the petitioner near Janta Nagar opposite O. N. G. C. office and ordered the petitioner to take the rickshaw to Jawahar Chowk Chowky alongwith the passengers. The petitioner complied with the said order and carried the rickshaw alongwith the passengers to the police chowky. At the police chowky relatives of the passengers came to request respondent No. 3 to release them all but respondent No. 3 arrested in all 8 persons alongwith the petitioners and put them in lock-up and the rickshaw was also seized and was taken in the police custody. Respondent No. 3 lodged a complaint against all the persons under secs. 279 and 114 of the I. P. Code read with secs. 112 and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That after detention of three hours all the passengers and the Petitioner were released on bail but the rickshaw was not given back to the petitioner and it was kept in custody of respondent No. 3 unlawfully and unauthorisedly. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner has filed the present petition in this court.

(3.) On 15-6-1982 this petition was admitted to final hearing by me and I granted ad-interim mandatory order directing release of the rickshaw subject to the condition that the petitioner should furnish solvent security in the sum of Rs. 5 0 to the satisfaction of respondent No. 2 Commissioner of Police and on furnishing such security the rickshaw in question was to be handed over to the petitioner by way of interim arrangement. The rickshaw is accordingly handed over to the petitioner. The petition has reached final hearing before me today.