1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25/07/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD) No.8110 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 P.Sivanantham ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Transport Authority, Srirangam, Trichirapalli- 625 005. 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Srirangam, Trichirapalli - 620 005. 3.The Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II, Office of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Enforcement Wing, Trichy - 620 009. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents release the petitioner's mini bus bearing registration No.TN-50-6333 to the petitioner forthwith. For petitioner .. Mr.A.Rahul For respondents .. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner, owner of the stage carrier (mini bus) bearing Registration No.TN-50-6333, has been alleged to have violated the permit conditions and operated in a route not authorized by the permit which expires on 21.05.2016. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has already permitted the petitioner to replace another mini bus in the place of TN-01-J-4812 with TN-50-6333. The petitioner's vehicle has been intercepted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II, Office of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Enforcement Wing, Trichy, third respondent herein on 14.07.2011 and it was seized on the ground that the said vehicle did not ply in the original route assigned to it. A communication dated 14.07.2011, stated to be the Motor Vehicle Inspection Record, has also been served to the petitioner, stating that the vehicle, driven by Mr.R.Madhan, S/o.Rengasamy, driver of the writ petitioner, has deviated from the original route assigned in the permit. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has made a representation dated 15.07.2011, along with the required documents, requesting the respondents to release the vehicle, it was not done and that the Vehicle has been parked in the Office of the Regional Transport Office, Srirangam, Trichy, second respondent herein under heat, dust and open to sky. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for a mandmus directing the respondents to release the mini bus bearing Registration No.TN-50-6333. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.On the above said pleadings and inviting the attention of this Court to Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Mr.A.Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the motor vehicle has been seized and detained under Sub Section (1) of Section 207, the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may; after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose. Inviting the attention of this Court to Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even assuming that there is a breach of condition of a permit, the Transport Authority which granted a permit may either cancel or suspend the permit for such period, as it thinks fit and that the vehicle need not be necessarily detained in the office of the second respondent. He further submitted that without prejudice to the lights of the petitioner, still the petitioner is willing to compound the offence and as per Rule 206 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rule, the Transport Authority, while determining the sum of money to be recovered in lieu of cancellation or suspension of different classes of permits, may have regard to the following namely:- (a)nature, gravity and frequency of the offence committed; (b) the quantum of punishment that would otherwise have been imposed; and (c) earning capacity of the vehicles with reference to the nature of the route and passenger capacity in the case of stage carriage and average daily kilometreage of the vehicle and hire charges, if any, in respect of other classes of transport vehicles. He further submitted that the maximum penalty that can be imposed is only Rs.9,000/- and in the above said circumstances, there is no need to detain the vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that Chapter X, deals with the offences, penalties and procedure of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules and Rule 421 states that (1) any motor vehicle detained under Section 207 shall be handed over to the police officer incharge of the nearest police station and such police officer shall keep the vehicle under safe custody until such time such officer receives a release order from the authorised officer mentioned in sub-rule(2); (2)the Regional Transport Officer in whose area the vehicle is detained shall be authorised officer for the issue of an order of release under sub- section (2) of Section 207; and (3) the Officers to recover the penalty for causing obstruction to free flow of traffic under Section 201 shall be any police officer in uniform not below the rank of Sub Inspector of Police." 4.In view of abovesaid provisions, Mr.A.Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner has made a representation dated 15.07.2011 for release of the vehicle along with the required documents, the second respondent ought to have released the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-50-6333 at the earliest, without waiting for any orders to be passed on compounding or under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5.Based on the counter affidavit filed by the Regional Transport Officer, Srirangam and on instructions, Mr.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that it was found that the above said vehicle was operated without any original permit, insurance certificate, driver license, conductor license, emission certificate and the tickets record were also not maintained. He further submitted that to the explanation, sought for from the writ petitioner, based on the check report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II, dated 14.07.2011, the petitioner himself has submitted that in future, he would maintain the records as per the permit condition. In these circumstances, the Regional Transport Authority, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli, vide order dated 21.07.2011, in R.No.38512/B1/2011 has directed that the orders may be passed as per Rule 206 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that inasmuch as the petitioner has come forward to compound the offence, appropriate orders would be passed as per Rule 206 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. The submission of the learned counsel for the State is placed on record. 6.In State of Maharashtra Vs. Nanded - Prabhani Z.L.B.M.V. Operator Sangh, reported in AIR 2000 SC 725, the Apex Court has held that the power of seizure is required to be exercised with care and caution and the power has to be exercised only when the pre-condition for exercise of power is fully satisfied. 7.In the case on hand, though the vehicle is stated to have been intercepted on 14.07.2011 and seized, as stated supra, proviso to Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides 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, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgement in respect thereof. Sub- Section (2) of Section 207 says that where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section(1), the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose. 8.In the case on hand, though the petitioner seemed to have made an application on 15.07.2011 along with the required documents, instead of verifying documents and releasing the vehicle, subject to certain conditions, the second respondent has unnecessarily detained the vehicle. For releasing of vehicle subject to the satisfaction of the competent authority, compounding is also not a mandatory requirement. As and when the permit holder comes forward to compound an offence, orders can be passed under Rule 206 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. The power under Section 207 ought to have been exercised by the Transport Authority, whether or not the petitioner had come forward to compound the offence. When the explanation of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 petitioner is already on record, it is always open to the licencing authority to suspend or cancel the permit, as the case may be, depending upon the facts and circumstances and the gravity of the charges. But, reading of the statutory provisions, makes it abundantly clear that as soon as the petitioner comes forward to produce necessary documents and seeks to release of the vehicle seized, the Transport Authority ought to have verified the documents and if they are found to be genuine, should have ordered for release of the vehicle instead of unnecessarily keeping the vehicle in his custody or in the custody of a Police Officer under open air, heat and dust. 9.For the reasons stated supra, there shall be a direction to the respondents release the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-50-6333 forthwith, subject to following conditions: "(i) The petitioner shall produce documents before the respondents to establish the ownership of the vehicle in question; (ii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for in a route not authorised to ply and shall produce the same as and when required by the respondents; (iii) On doing so, the vehicle in question shall be returned to the petitioner; (iv) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle in question till the disposal of the proceedings before the authority concerned." 10.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Regional Transport Authority, Srirangam, Trichirapalli- 625 005. 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Srirangam, Trichirapalli - 620 005. 3.The Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II, Office of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Enforcement Wing, Trichy - 620 009. +1cc to Mr.A.Rahul, Advocate SR.No.24446 +1cc to Speicial Govt.Pleader SR.No.24823 W.P.(MD) No.8110 of 2011 25.07.2011 gcg PA/26.07.2011/4P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/