CWP No.2595 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2595 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.02.2010 The Dahima Shree Bala Ji Co-operative Transport Society Limited and another ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the challans dated 03.02.2010 (Annexures P-10 and P-11) issued by respondent No. 3 impounding Bus No. HR-45-C-0001 belonging to petitioner No. 1 and Bus No. HR-45-A-0001 belonging to petitioner No. 2. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the reasons, which have been mentioned by respondent No. 3 for impounding the vehicles, are CWP No.2595 of 2010 2 totally incorrect as all the documents are up to date and there is no fault in the documents pertaining to the vehicles or the permit/route on which the vehicles were being plied. As a matter of fact, the vehicles were plying on the extended routes, which have been duly granted by the competent authority to the petitioner. There was no reason for not having the documents with the vehicles when they were all in order. His further contention is that it has been recorded that the Drivers had run away from the spot whereas the Drivers were forced to park the vehicles in the premises of respondent No. 3 and the petitioners were informed by the staff of the Buses about the impounding of the vehicles. He, on this basis, contends that the challans and the impounding of the vehicles by respondent No. 3 cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed. He relies upon the provisions of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contend that the detention of the vehicles by respondent No. 3 is not in accordance with law. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the case. Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is reproduced herein below as relied upon by the counsel, which reads as follows: “207. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit; *** (1) Any police officer or other person authorized in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention or any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the CWP No.2595 of 2010 3 purpose for which the vehicle may be used, 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, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgment in respect thereof. (2) Where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person Incharge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorized 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.” A perusal of the above Section would show that a person, who is duly authorized on behalf of the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or is violating any of the conditions of permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seized or detained the vehicle. The challans (Annexures P-10 and P-11) itself suggest that the CWP No.2595 of 2010 4 vehicles were impounded when they were going out of route and were without documents. The Drivers had also run away from the spot without giving the documents. All this would go to show that the terms and conditions of the permit and the other requirements of the Statute were not fulfilled by the petitioners at the time when the vehicles were challaned. In any case, the contentions, which have been raised by the counsel for the petitioners on facts, involve disputed questions which cannot be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 15, 2010 pj