MOHAMMAD NASEERUDDIN Vs. SECRETARY R T A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is owner of a jeep bearing registration No. KA-38-M- 451 filed the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle, which was detained in Hadnoor Police Station, Medak District in Crime No. 1 of 1997, and under Check Report No.305608 dated 17-1-1997 in not releasing the vehicle, though he paid the compounding fee, as well as the tax as per their oral instructions and also after giving an affidavit stating that he was travelling along with his family members from Bidar to Zahirabad to attend a marriage, at the time when the accident took place and the vehicle was not being used as Stage Carriage. Having satisfied prima facie that the action of the 2nd respondent is highly illegal, by order dated 10-4-1997, I directed his appearance in the Court. Pursuant to the said orders, the 2nd respondent appeared in this Court on 21-4-1997 and stated that he has not seized the vehicle, but the Station House Officer, Hadnoor seized the vehicle. As the statement of the 2nd respondent is quite contrary to the Check Report dated 17-1-1997, I directed him to file an affidavit duly explaining why he should not be directed to pay damages to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 10,000 /- per month. Pursuant to the said order, the 1st and 2nd respondents filed their counters in this case.

(2.) The question that arises for consideration of this Court would be whether the Motor Vehicle Inspector is justified in seizing the vehicle, which met with an accident on the basis of a requisition sent by the concerned police to certify about the physical condition of the vehicle. It is not in dispute that the jeep in question met with road accident at Gangwar Check Post, within the local limits of Hadnoor Police Station and one of the passengers by name Sk. Mohammed Ali, son of Aziz Miyan, resident of Bidar was crushed under the wheels and died instantaneously. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent seized the vehicle after registering a Crime No.1 of 1997 against the Driver. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent sent a requisition to the 2nd respondent to certify about the physical condition of the vehicle. Pursuant to the said requisition, the 2nd respondent visited the Police Station on 17-1-1997 and it is not known what report he has given with regard to the physical condition of the vehicle. But under Check Report No. 305608 dated 17-1-1997, he seized the vehicle under Section 8 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and also under Section 207 of Motor Vehicles Act and further detained the vehicle at Police Station, Hadnoor for safe custody. It is further the case of the petitioner that when he approached the respondents 1 and 3 on 11-3-1997 and as per their oral orders, he paid Rs. 1,650/- through a challan towards compounding fee and another sum of Rs. 280/- by way of Demand Draft towards tax and he also gave an affidavit stating that the vehicle met with an accident, while himself and his family members along with the deceased, who is his friend's son are travelling and requested the authorities to release the vehicle. But the respondents seemed to have not released the vehicle. Ultimately, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition and pursuant to the interim orders granted by this Court, the vehicle was released on 15-4-1997. Both the respondents in their counter categorically admitted that the respective amounts were paid by the petitioner. But they tried to justify their illegal action in not releasing the vehicle, by stating that the vehicle was found plying as Stage Carriage and as such the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,600/- towards compounding fee under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act and a sum of Rs. 7,110/- at the rate of Rs. 790/- per seat per quarter and as nine persons are travelling in the vehicle, they have to pay the said amount as per G.O.Ms.No. 220, dated 17-11-1996. This statement of the respondents was seriously contested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner stating that the tax claimed by the respondents is the tax, which has to be paid for a Stage Carriage, plying on the mofussil route, but not for Motor Cab. Even presuming the allegation to be true, for the purpose of deciding this writ petition, I need not go into that aspect, as the authorities concerned has yet to determine the tax liability in an enquiry to be conducted after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, to prove his case. It is suffice to state that if this tax is really payable by the petitioner, the respondents would not have accepted the challan and the demand draft submitted by the petitioner seeking release of the vehicle. From the counterfiled by the 2nd respondent, it is seen that the petitioner paid the amount as demanded by the respondents. In paragraph 2 of his counter, he stated that "in fact the petitioner approached the Secretary, R.T.A., Medak (1st respondent) on 11-3-1997 for release of the vehicle and he has also consented for compounding and paid a sum of Rs. 1,650/- and also a sum of Rs. 208/- for tax." This statement itself proves mat to cover up their illegal action, the respondents came up with a plea that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 7,110/- towards tax and Rs. 2,600/- towards compounding fee.

(3.) The issue can be looked from another angle also. If it is the case of the respondents that this is the tax payable by the petitioner, nothing prevented the authorities in serving a notice on the petitioner calling upon him to pay the amount. Further payment of tax by the petitioner will arise only after the authorities concerned come to the conclusion that this vehicle is being plied as Stage Carriage, after full fledged enquiry. It is not in dispute that the respondents have not even commenced the enquiry in this case. The fallacy in the arguments of the respondents is evident from the Check Report itself, which is extracted hereunder: