MEERJA HAMEEDULLAH BAIG Vs. R T A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these Writ Petitions, the vires of Rule 448-B of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Rules') framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 28,38, 95, 96,107, 111, 138 and 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') is called in question. An incidental question as regards the correctness or otherwise of a decision of this Court in M. Venkateswara Rao vs. Secretary, R.T.A. also arises for consideration.

(2.) While admitting the Writ Petitions, it was observed that the findings of the learned Single Judge in Venkateswara Rao's case to the effect that a Writ of Mandamus would not lie directing the release of the vehicles nor the seizure itself can be declared as illegal as well as the finding that the aggrieved persons have to necessarily file application for release of the vehicle seized and detained by the competent authority, if they so desire, may be considered afresh in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Nanded-Parbhani Z.I.B.M. vs. Operators Sangh.

(3.) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. Chapter XIII of the said Act deals with offences, penalties and procedure. Section 207 empowers any Police Officer or other person authorised by the State Government to seize and detain a vehicle in the manner prescribed therein if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by Section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Act reads thus: "Provided that where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Sec. 66 he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate or registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgment in respect thereof." Sub-section (2) of Section 207 reads thus: