1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.No.434 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 S.Rajarathinam S/o.Swaminathan Mathinavilai House Kalluvilai, Mangarai (PO) Karungal Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector cum The Regional Transport Authority Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari District. ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to release the mini bus bearing Registration No.TN 74 Z 9867 seized on 05.01.2011 by the third respondent and hand it over to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramadhas For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Additional Government Pleader ORDER By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of direction to the second respondent to release the mini bus bearing Registration No.TN 74 Z 9867 seized on 05.01.2011 by the third respondent and hand it over to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle namely mini bus bearing Registration No.TN 74 Z 9867 and also, obtained the permit to ply the above said vehicle from Monday Market to Nallayankovil via Christmas St., Paul St., Kollaivilakku, Pethalpuram Vilakku Road, Karukkankuzhi Junction, Mathiravilai Vilakku, CSI Church Vaikal Road, Paramankarai, Mulamootuvilagam and Nallayankovil vilakku Road. It is submitted that the said permit was renewed periodically and the petitioner has not contravened any terms and conditions of the Permit. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the above said vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the third respondent on 05.01.2011 on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the original records of the Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate and Permit. It is submitted that the said original records were not available at the time of inspection and the driver of the vehicle has produced the xerox copies of the certificates and requested the third respondent that he would produce the same later. Inspite of the same, the third respondent seized the vehicle. The petitioner has preferred a representation on 05.01.2011 to release the vehicle, but the second respondent declined to release the vehicle, till the adjudication of the first respondent. The learned counsel submitted that the respondents declined to exercise the provision under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides interim custody of the vehicle and as such, the petitioner is constrained to approach this court for seeking the above said relief. 5. Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that there is no illegality in seizing the vehicle, as the petitioner has not produced the original records, namely Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate and Permit at the time of inspection. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that the petitioner is habitually doing the operation of the Minibus beyond the permitted area and if such things are allowed to proceed, they may take advantage of the order of this Court and doing the illegal activities. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. The fact remains that the vehicle, namely, mini bus bearing Registration No.TN 74 Z 9867 was seized on 05.01.2011 mainly on the ground of non production of original records, namely, Registration certificate, Insurance certificate and Permit. It is seen that the petitioner also made a representation on the same date i.e. 05.01.2011, seeking for the release of vehicle and also pointed out that the provision under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by which the vehicle may be given interim custody. But no order was passed on such representation and as such, the petitioner has approached this Court for the above said relief. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. It is pertinent to note that the vehicle seized for the above said contravention is liable to be released within a reasonable time in the event of the aggrieved person preferring any application for release of the vehicle by imposing suitable conditions. 9. The ground on which the power to detain the vehicles used without certificate of registration permit etc., contained in Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and under Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, the petitioner is entitled to seek the relief of the release of the vehicle and the authority is empowered as per the said Section, to release the vehicle by imposing suitable conditions. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of M/s.Saleem Tours and Travals v. Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary and another reported in AIR 2000 Andhra Pradesh 497. In the said decision, it was held that: ''Where the vehicle was seized for plying in contravention of conditions of permit and the competent authority refuses to release the vehicle within a reasonable time, say within three days, after the application is made in this behalf or imposes onerous conditions, the aggrieved person, permit holder, would be entitled to resort to remedy under Art. 226. The Court may direct release of the vehicle on such conditions as may be deemed appropriate viz., deposit of certain amount in order to secure the production of vehicle in connection with the enquiry or prosecution, prohibiting the transfer of the vehicle etc. If any amount is deposited pursuant to the order of the Court, the same is liable to be adjusted ultimately against the compounding fee or the tax payable.'' 11. In view of the above said decision and in view of the admitted facts as stated above, this Court is constrained to direct the second respondent herein to release the vehicle, namely, mini bus bearing Registration No.TN 74-Z-9867, seized by the third respondent on 05.01.2011, on the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall produce the original documents in proof of the ownership of the vehicle and the second respondent shall receive the Xerox copy of the documents and return the original on perusal of the same; (ii) The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for any illegal activities for unauthorised route in future and also to produce the vehicle as and when required by the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 12. It is also made clear that the respondents are at liberty to proceed in the manner known to law for adjudication by giving opportunity to the petitioner. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector cum The Regional Transport Authority Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari District. +1cc to Mr.M.Ramdhas, Advocate Sr.No.1943 +1cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.2105 RR akm/27.01.11 /4p-7c/ W.P.No.434 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 19.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/