NIRJA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this petition has challenged the order dated 12-6-1999 (annexure P/3) and the orders annexures P/1 and P/2, seizure memo and panchnama prepared seizing the vehicle of the petitioner and order, annexure P/10 dated 21-6-1999 passed by the Taxation Authority, Gwalior. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner of the Stage Carriage No. MP-6-B-0344 which has been illegally seized by the respondent No. 3 on 12-6-1999. It is also the case of the petitioner that she holds a valid permit No. 235/91 which was valid upto 4-4-2001 for the route Gwalior to Sheopur. Under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Yan Karadhan Rules, 1991 framed under the Madhya Pradesh Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1991, a provision is made in Rule 12 for intimation for non-use of the permit. As the vehicle in question developed certain mechanical fault, on 29-5-1999, in compliance with Rule 12 of the Rules of 1991, the competent authorities were informed that the vehicle is under repair and is not being used. The petitioner has its stores at Barad. The vehicle after minor repairs at Gwalior was being carried to Barad for further repairing. It is stated that the provision of S. 66(3)(p) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with explanation 7 of First Schedule of the Adhiniyam of 1991, enables the owner to transport the vehicle for repairs.

(2.) Respondent 3 on 12-6-1999 seized the vehicle and prepared panchnama, annexures P/1 and P/2 respectively and took the vehicle to Police Station, Barad about 50 meters from the place of seizure.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle was seized when it was parked on the said of the road and there was no driver on the vehicle. When the driver came to know about it, he went to the Police Station where notice, annexure P/3 was given to him wherein it was indicated that a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under S. 16(3) read with S. 3 of item No. iv sub-item (g) of the first Schedule of the Adhiniyam, 1991 is being imposed on the ground that the vehicle was found carrying passengers and was not having proper permit. It is stated that seizure of the vehicle was because of violation of S. 39 read with S. 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that S. 39 speaks of non-registration of the vehicle. Registration certificate, annexure P/4 was produced. The other contravention was with regard to plying of the vehicle without permit and carrying passengers in it on hire or reward. It is submitted that the entire action is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. Inviting attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mahendra Arora v. The Transport Commissioner, M. P. Gwalior, AIR 1993 Madh Pra 29, it is submitted that the entire action is vitiated for non-compliance of the provisions of the rules and regulations in view of the said judgments.