ABUL HASAN Vs. R.G. HOLDINGS PRIVATE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first letters patent appeal has been filed on behalf of the then District Transport Officer, Purnea, whereas, the second letters patent appeal has been filed by the State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna. Both of them have been filed against the same judgment and order dated 25.03.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9073 of 2007, by which the writ petition of the writ petitioner, who is respondent no.1 in both the aforesaid letters patent appeals, was allowed with a direction to the State to pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 as compensation and further liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to move the appropriate Court if he thought he was entitled to anything more. Liberty was also granted to the State to realize the said amount from the concerned officer, who was found responsible. Hence both the aforesaid letters patent appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The claim of the appellants in both the appeals is that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the official position had not been abused by the authority concerned and he had proceeded in the case merely on the basis of his genuine belief with respect to violation of the provisions of law as the vehicle was plying with invalid documents, but inspite of that the authority concerned had to face the ordeal of prosecution under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code for frivolous claim of seizure of vehicle although it was in discharge of his official duty. The conduct of the appellant of the first letters patent appeal was with bona fide intent in charging the fine and also in the matter of release of vehicle.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the objective of sections 103 and 158 of the Act had not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge and had been wrongly applied in the facts of the present case as the object was to facilitate the owner to produce genuine document within the time frame and not to facilitate any person, who did not produce any genuine document. It was claimed that the concerned authority under the command of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Purnea was deputed in special drive for checking of vehicles to prevent illegal plying of vehicles as the State Government was suffering huge loss of revenue. Hence when the writ petitioner did not produce the genuine documents, his vehicle was seized for breach of section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity), specially when proviso to Clause 1 of section 207 of the Act did not provide seizure of document as alternative for seizure of vehicle if it related to breach of section 39 of the Act. In these circumstances, the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 02.07.2007 himself rejected the writ petitioner's application for release of vehicle.