STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAJENDRAKUMAR JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of Special Civil Application filed by the State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Transport Department, Sachivalaya, Jaipur, the grievance voiced is that inspite of the fact that there is no cause of action against the State of Rajasthan, suits are filed in some selected courts in the State of Gujarat and blanket injunctions are obtained restraining the defendants State of Gujarat, State of Rajasthan and their officers from seizing or detaining the plaintiffs vehicles and recovering compensation amount under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 668

(2.) Inspite of notice being served on the plaintiff-respondent, none has appeared. These matters were adjourned from time to time with the hope that the plaintiffs who have obtained ex-parte stay orders and enjoying the benefit of that will put in their appearance.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, I have taken the facts from Special Civil Application No. 10744/95. Mr. R. M. Chhaya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has read before me a copy of the plaint filed by the plaintiff-Rajendrakumar Joshi, proprietor of Shrinath Tourist Agency in Special Suit No. 263/95 filed on 25.4.1995 in the Court of Civil Judge (SD) at Baroda (Rural). According to the suit, the plaintiff is doing business of tourist bus operators, tour organisers and contractors and is maintaining a fleet of tourist buses. The necessary details of which have been furnished separately at Schedule 'A' appended to the plaint. The buses operated are duly registered under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder by the Central Government as well as by the concerned State Government. The buses have also been granted All India Permits, special permits, or tourist permits as the case may be for which they are required to pay regularly the necessary road taxes and other levies collected by various State Governments in whose territories the plaintiffs tourist buses ply. Inspite of this, the defendant authorities in the guise of exercise of power and authority under Sec. 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988'), seized and detained the plaintiff's vehicle mainly on the basis of allegation that the passengers carried in the plaintiff's vehicle have paid individual fares for their travel and as such they are plying the vehicle as State carriages without permits. The plaintiffs have expressed that on account of seizure of their vehicles, great difficulties and inconvenience is caused not only to them but also to the travelling public. Various contentions have been raised with respect to the provisions under Sec. 207 of the Act. In para 11 of the petition, it is stated that the cause of action of the suit has arisen within the local limits of the Court when the defendant authorities in utter breach and violation of the provisions of Sec. 207 of the Act unauthorisedly and illegally started seizing and detaining the plaintiff's tourist vehicles mainly on the allegation that the plaintiff or its agents had collected individual fares from the passengers and thereby committed breach of condition of the permit. On these facts, the plaintiff has sought relief seeking declaration against the defendant No. 1 Secretary, Transport and Fisheries Department, Gandhinagar, defendant No. 2- Secretary, Home Department, Gandhinagar and defendant No. 3, Secretary, Transport Department, Sachivalaya, Jaipur. In the schedule appended to the suit, a list of 18 vehicles has been given. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed seeking interim relief as follows :