RAJVEER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two writ petitions, constitutional validity of following portion of Section 207 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1988", has been challenged : "207. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit, etc., - (1) "Any police officer or" and words "seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle : 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 Section 66, he may instead of seizing the vehicle .........."

(2.) In short, Section 207 of the Act of 1988 empowers a police officer or an officer authorised by the State Government to seize a motor vehicle, if he has a reason to believe that the vehicle is being driven without registration or without permit or by a person who has no driving licence or plying on unauthorised route and the vehicle may be released only after satisfying that the vehicle complies with a requirement of the provisions.

(3.) In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2255/1998, it is averred by the petitioner that on 5-6-1998 his five buses moving from Jodhpur to different destinations such as Udaipur. Ahmedabad etc. were seized by the police one after another by invoking the provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1988. The say of the petitioner is that it was done mala fidely with a view to give a lesson to the petitioner as he had approached to this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against seizure of the vehicle invoking the provisions of Section 34 of the Police Act. A certified copy of the order of this Court being S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 375/1998 "Pep Singh v. State of Rajasthan" has been placed on record. As far as the factual aspect is concerned, it is pointed out by the respondents that the order Annexure 1 has nothing to do with the seizure of the vehicles on 5-6-1998. The said Criminal Miscellaneous petition was filed by one Pep Singh against the action taken by the police under Section 34 of the Police Act. It is submitted that the petitioner with a calculated move to mislead the Court, has referred to the order Annexure 1. It is submitted that the petitioner is carrying on the business of travelling agency in the name of M/s. Chandra Travels. he has obtained contract carriage permit from the Transport Officer, Jodhpur. He has been using the contract carriage permit as stage carriage permit by running the Video Coaches buses from Jodhpur to various cities like Udaipur, Ahemadabad etc. It is also averred that like petitioner, there are many other travelling agencies of this nature, which also undertakes, such kind of activities through Video Coaches Buses. They are plying the buses on the routes for which they do not have the stage carriage permit. They lift the passengers from the places which come to the routes. They are running the Video Coaches in contravention of the provisions of Section 98 of the Act of 1988. It is also submitted that this has resulted in heavy revenue loss to the State Roadways Corporation as well as the State Government. In order to curb and stop their illegal action, the authorities of the State Government undertakes a special programme from time to time. Shri Chandan Dan, M.T.I. was attracted with the programme vide order dated 29th July, 1997. On 5-6-1998 at about 5.30 a.m. On surprise checking he found Bus Nos. RJ 20 P-2601, RJ 19 P-3267, RJ 22 P-0492 and RJ 13 P-0635 operating on the permit of contract carriage. The operators were found plying the buses in contravention of the terms and conditions of the contract carriage permit and provisions of the Act of 1988. The operators/owners were asked by Shri Chandan Dan to show the documents like the Registration Certificates, Permits etc. but they refused to do so. Shri Chandan Dan was, therefore, forced to seize the said buses by exercising the powers conferred by Section 207 of the Act of 1988. It is further averred that on the same day, the Bus No. RJ 19 P-3281, RJ 19 P-4537 and RJ 19 P-3631, all having the contract carriage permits, were found plying as a Stage Carriage Permit and there was further violation of certain terms of the permits. The operators/owners were asked to show necessary documents but they refused to do so and, therefore, the Circle Inspector Shri Chandan Dan, exercising the powers under Section 207 of the Act of 1988 seized the vehicles. While Shri Chandan Dan was carrying these buses to the Police Control Room, the owners of the Bus Nos. RJ 19 P-3631 and 19 P-3281 blocked the way by putting vehicles across the road and nearby these Buses the operators/owners of seized vehicles namely; Rajveer Singh (present petitioner) of Chandra Travels, Manish Travels, Onkar Singh of Chadra Travels, JitendraSingh of Jain Travels, Parveen Ganchi of Laxmi Travels, Bhagirath son of Shri Dheera Ram Vishnoi of Chandra Travels and some other persons blocked the way and did not permit the seized vehicles to be taken to the Control Room, which resulted into a traffic jam causing inconvenience to the people at large. After some time, the senior police officials also reached on the spot. The aforesaid owners of the travelling agencies had reached on the spot in their private cars. In order to clear the traffic on the road, help of Crane and drivers of Police Department had to be taken. The Additional District Magistrate (City) and Additional S.P. also reached on the spot and tried to pacify them. The assembly of these persons was declared as unlawful and they were removed forcefully. Shri Chandan Dan filed a F.I.R. at Police Station, Udai Mandi, which has been registered as FIR Case No. 239/98 for the offences under Sections 143, 145, 147, 149, 183, 186, 332, 353 and 283, IPC. The buses were checked and the memos were prepared. The tickets of the travellers were also annexed with the checking memo. In addition to the vouchers of tickets, all the incriminating evidence was collected to show that the Video Coaches were plying as Stage Carriage Permit. After investigation, a challan has been filed against 18 accused persons. The buses have been released by the competent Court.