BODDU RAJULAMMA Vs. SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT SRIKAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd Respondent in impounding the licence of the petitioner's driver under vehicle Check Report dated 24-3-1997 on the ground that his stage carriage bus was carrying eight passengers deviating the route, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Transport.

(3.) Under Section 206(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Inspecting Officer is empowered to seize the licence of the driver if he is of the opinion that he may abscond or otherwise avoid the service of summons and forward to the Court taking cognizance of the offence. Again Section 206 empowers the Inspecting Officer to impound a document, under the circumstances that if he has reason to believe that any identification marks carried on a motor vehicle or in licence, permit, certificate of registration, certificate of insurance or other document produced to him by the driver or person-in-charge of the motor vehicle is a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code seize the mark or document and call upon the driver or owner of the vehicle to account for his possession of or the persons in the vehicle of such mark or document. In this case, there is no such allegation that the driver produced any false papers before the Inspecting Officer. The only allegation is that the vehicle deviated from the route and it was checked while it was plying on an unauthorised route. Even the question of seizing the licence of the driver does not arise under Section 206 of the Act. In this case, the M.V. Inspector impounded the driving licence of the petitioner's driver. The word 'impound' is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as follows: "take (Property) into legal custody, confiscate." From this it is seen that the 2nd Respondent exceeded his jurisdiction in confiscating the driving licence of the petitioner even without holding an enquiry and even without giving any notice to the petitioner to show cause why his licence should not be confiscated. Hence the action of the 2nd Respondent in confiscating the driving licence of the petitioner's driver is set aside and consequently the 2nd Respondent is directed to return the driving licence to the concerned driver forthwith.