1997 JTR(SC) 273
1997 AIR(SC) 1405 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1530 ; 1997 2 CLT(SC) 38 ; 1997 2 ICC 708 ; 1997 2 JT 743 ; 1997 2 RCR(Civ) 481 ; 1997 2 Scale 280 ; 1997 9 SCC 227 ; 1997 2 SCR 78 ; 1997 KHC 1143 ; 1997 1 KLT(Online) 1152 ; 1997 2 Supreme 483
1997(2) Supreme 483
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
Nirmala Jagdishchandra Kabra -Petitioner
versus
Transport Commissioner & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2622 of 1997
Decided on 14-2-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Arun Jaitley, Sr. Advocate and S.C. Patel, Advocate.
Act Referred :MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : S.207(1), S.2(7), S.206, S.207
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act provisions at Sections 2, 39, 66, 206, and 207 are central to this dispute concerning the validity of seizure orders issued for alleged fare collection violations. Section 2(7) defines the specific nature of the operation as contract carriage, while Section 207(1) empowers authorities to seize a vehicle if it is being used in contravention of specified provisions, including conditions of a permit relating to route or purpose, or without the required permit. The proviso to Section 207 provides an alternative measure of seizing the certificate of registration instead of the vehicle when the violation relates to Section 3, Section 4, or Section 66. Section 206 provides a mechanism for compounding the offence, offering the statutory authority the discretion to either seize the vehicle or compound the matter. The impugned order was passed under Section 207 read with these allied provisions, focusing on whether the act of collecting individual fares constituted a breach justifying seizure. The authority's interpretation focused on the violation of permit conditions governing the purpose and method of carriage, distinguishing between contract carriage and stage carriage operations.
(B) The core legal principles delineated include the statutory grant of wide discretionary power to enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with the Act, the distinction between contract carriage and stage carriage operations, and the permissible remedies available for different violations. The case underscores that the power to seize is contingent upon a finding of contravention of specific sections or permit conditions, and that compounding an offence is an authorized alternative. The judgment emphasizes that the mode of operationcollecting individual fares rather than operating under a contract for the entire vehicledetermines the legal characterization and the validity of the seizure.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner held a contract carriage permit but was found collecting individual fares from passengers at a rate of Rs. 1.60 per passenger. The authorities alleged that this conduct violated the permit conditions, effectively converting the operation into a stage carriage service rather than the contracted carriage of a group party. Consequently, the Motor Vehicle Inspector imposed a penalty and the authorities seized the vehicle.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the vehicle was being used in violation of the conditions of the permit by engaging in stage carriage activity. It held that the authorities were legally empowered to detain the vehicle under Section 207(1) of the Act due to this breach. The compounding power under Section 206 was noted, but the specific authority to seize was validly exercised in accordance with the proviso and the nature of the contravention.
Issues:
Whether the collection of individual fares while operating under a contract carriage permit constitutes a violation of the conditions of the permit, thereby justifying the seizure of the vehicle under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Whether the High Court was correct in refusing relief against the seizure in light of the statutory provisions governing vehicle use and permit conditions.
Ratio Decidendi:
The collection of individual fares from passengers while operating under a contract carriage permit transforms the operation into a stage carriage, which is a contravention of the permit conditions. This contravention falls squarely within the scope of Section 207(1) of the Act, empowering the authorities to seize the vehicle. The remedy of compounding the offence is available but does not preclude the exercise of the seizure power, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed, and the order of the High Court refusing relief is upheld.
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act provisions at Sections 2, 39, 66, 206, and 207 are central to this dispute concerning the validity of seizure orders issued for alleged fare collection violations. Section 2(7) defines the specific nature of the operation as contract carriage, while Section 207(1) empowers authorities to seize a vehicle if it is being used in contravention of specified provisions, including conditions of a permit relating to route or purpose, or without the required permit. The proviso to Section 207 provides an alternative measure of seizing the certificate of registration instead of the vehicle when the violation relates to Section 3, Section 4, or Section 66. Section 206 provides a mechanism for compounding the offence, offering the statutory authority the discretion to either seize the vehicle or compound the matter. The impugned order was passed under Section 207 read with these allied provisions, focusing on whether the act of collecting individual fares constituted a breach justifying seizure. The authority's interpretation focused on the violation of permit conditions governing the purpose and method of carriage, distinguishing between contract carriage and stage carriage operations.
(B) The core legal principles delineated include the statutory grant of wide discretionary power to enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with the Act, the distinction between contract carriage and stage carriage operations, and the permissible remedies available for different violations. The case underscores that the power to seize is contingent upon a finding of contravention of specific sections or permit conditions, and that compounding an offence is an authorized alternative. The judgment emphasizes that the mode of operationcollecting individual fares rather than operating under a contract for the entire vehicledetermines the legal characterization and the validity of the seizure.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner held a contract carriage permit but was found collecting individual fares from passengers at a rate of Rs. 1.60 per passenger. The authorities alleged that this conduct violated the permit conditions, effectively converting the operation into a stage carriage service rather than the contracted carriage of a group party. Consequently, the Motor Vehicle Inspector imposed a penalty and the authorities seized the vehicle.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the vehicle was being used in violation of the conditions of the permit by engaging in stage carriage activity. It held that the authorities were legally empowered to detain the vehicle under Section 207(1) of the Act due to this breach. The compounding power under Section 206 was noted, but the specific authority to seize was validly exercised in accordance with the proviso and the nature of the contravention.
Issues:
Whether the collection of individual fares while operating under a contract carriage permit constitutes a violation of the conditions of the permit, thereby justifying the seizure of the vehicle under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Whether the High Court was correct in refusing relief against the seizure in light of the statutory provisions governing vehicle use and permit conditions.
Ratio Decidendi:
The collection of individual fares from passengers while operating under a contract carriage permit transforms the operation into a stage carriage, which is a contravention of the permit conditions. This contravention falls squarely within the scope of Section 207(1) of the Act, empowering the authorities to seize the vehicle. The remedy of compounding the offence is available but does not preclude the exercise of the seizure power, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed, and the order of the High Court refusing relief is upheld.
ORDER
This special leave petition arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, made on December 4, 1996 in LPA No. 1430/96. The Motor Vehicle Inspector had imposed penalty of Rs. 1,000/- etc. for violation of the conditions of the contract carriage permit. It was found that the vehicle was being as stage carriage in violation of the breach of the conditions of the permit inasmuch as petitioner was collecting individual fares @ Rs. 1.60 per passenger and was not using the vehicle as a tourist; vehicle hired to one group party. The petitioner filed writ petition in the High Court seeking the relief as under:
"To allow this petition and to issue appropriate writ, direction and order holding and declaring that the respondent authorities have no legal right or power or authority to either seize or detain the petitioner s vehicles shown at Annexure A to this petition in purported exercise of power under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 solely on the allegation of collection of individual fare from the passengers."
2. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench refused to grant the relief in the face of Section 207(1) read with proviso thereto, of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, the Act ). Section 207 of the Act postulates the power to detain vehicle used without certificate of registration etc. Sub-section (1) provides thus :"
"Any police officer or other person authorised 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 to Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the 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."
The proviso postulates thus :
"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."
3. There is a power for compounding the offence provided in Section 206 of the Act. In the light of the sub-section (1) of Section 207, if the officer authorised in that behalf is of the opinion that the vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of any of the aforesaid provisions of the Act or conditions of the permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle is used, he may seize and detain the vehicle or compound the offence. The statutory power given to the authorised officer under Section 207 is to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the mandamus sought for cannot be issued, as referred to earlier.
4. It is contended by Shri Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has taken the vehicle on hire basis from the owner of the vehicle who had the permit for contract carriage of the passengers from one destination to another. They are not collecting any individual fare en route by picking up or setting down the passengers. They are picking up passengers from one place and taking them for tour to the other destination and, therefore, it is a "contract carriage" within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act. It is not a State carriage permit but one of contract carriage and, therefore, the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law. It is true that if the holder of the vehicle obtains a contract carriage, the owner may carry a passenger or passengers for hire or reward on contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of such vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum. In other words, the very permit for which the contract for carriage of the passengers granted should contain the names of the passengers to carry from one destination to another destination without picking up or setting down en route for hire or reward but when the holder of a permit is another and permits them to carry the passengers and makes the contract de hors those mentioned in the list of passengers enclosed to the permit as contract carriage and takes the passengers from one destination to another, even without picking up or setting down en route, the necessary consequence would be that the vehicle has been or is being used as a stage carriage but not a contract carriage. Under those circumstances, obviously, the authority had rightly detained the vehicle for the contravention of the conditions of the permit. Therefore, the mandamus, as sought for, was rightly refused by the High Court. The learned counsel sought reliance on a judgment of the Madras High Court in N. Krishnasami Chetty & Ors. v. The Licensing Officer1. The learned Judges have not correctly appreciated the legal position. Therefore, it is not correct in view of the above law. It is accordingly over-ruled.
5. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
SLP dismissed.
*******