Bombay High Court
Auto Hangar (India) Private ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 24 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp5430.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 5430 OF 2015.
Auto Hangar (India) Private Limited,
a Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its office
at Plot No.C-40/B, Central M.I.D.C.
Main Road, M.I.D.C., Hingna,
District Nagpur, through its
Authorized signatory Shri Sachin Lambe. ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Department of Road
Transport, Mantralaya,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 32.
2. Regional Transport Authority,
Amravati, through Regional Transport
Officer, Amravati. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. Sunil V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with
Shri N.A. Gaikwad, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. N.R. Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondents.
------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:31:31 :::
Judgment wp5430.15
2
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 24, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard Shri Sunil V. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
N.A. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.R. Patil, learned
A.G.P. for respondents. Considering the controversy involved in the matter
and with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, Writ
Petition is taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making the same
returnable forthwith.
2. The question involved in this Writ Petition is - Whether the action
of detention of LMV Car on 12.09.2015 at Amravati is valid ?
The issue has been prima facie considered by this Court on
29.09.2015 and by a reasoned order, a direction to release that vehicle back
to the petitioner was issued. The said direction has been complied with.
3. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel submits that the vehicle
being used for demonstration purposes, had necessary Trade Certificate and
Judgment wp5430.15
documents like Trade Certificate, Tax Invoice, Insurance Policy and Form
No.19 were with the vehicle. The only reason that the vehicle, as per
Odometer appears to have been used for about 6000 kms., since 2010
weighed with the Authorities for detaining the same. Inviting attention to
the provisions of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he states that
if in this situation, Rule 39 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is
shown to be breached, some action could have been taken. However, here a
valid Trade certificate and other documents revealing no need to pay the tax
under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 were all with
the said vehicle, and were taken in possession by respondents.
4. Our attention is invited to the fact that one time tax is payable
only if the vehicle is required to be registered. Here in view of the Trade
certificate already issued to petitioner, that requirement was not applicable.
Our attention is also invited to the fact that necessary taxes have been paid
from time to time, and those entries are also made in the trade certificate.
5. Assertions specifically made on affidavit in Writ Petition in
paragraph no.13, that the petitioner had a valid trade certificate and similar
assertion in paragraph no.14, that the copy of the trade certificate, tax
invoices, insurance policy as also form no.19 are detained by the respondent
Judgment wp5430.15
no.2 at Amravati, are pressed into service with submission that the
respondents have not even traversed the same.
6. Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported at (2002) 2
SCC 69 (State of Maharashtra and others .vrs. Nanded-Parbhani
Z.L.B.M.V. Operator Sangh), is relied upon to urge that in this situation,
the vehicle could not have been detained at all.
7. Shri Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the respondents is relying upon the reply-affidavit. He submits that
the vehicle was found in such circumstances at Amravati that its seizure was
warranted. It is further contended that the driver of the vehicle could not
produce duplicate copy of Form no.19 at the time of inspection of the said
vehicle. He is relying upon the averments in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the
said reply to urge that vehicle was not being used for the purpose stipulated
in Rule 41(clauses [a] to [h]) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, and
hence, the Trade certificate is not an answer to it. He therefore, justifies the
action.
8. The circumstances which prompted the respondent to seize the
vehicle are disclosed only in paragraph no.9 of the reply- affidavit. Except
Judgment wp5430.15
for urging that the said vehicle cannot be used in a public place for any
purpose other than the purpose prescribed in Rule 41, there are no other
comments throwing light on the facts to enable us to gather the
circumstances in which the vehicle was taken in custody. Submission that
the vehicle was being used for personal purpose is also not borne out from
the said reply and material on record. After detention of the vehicle on
12.09.2015, a show cause notice could have been served on the petitioner to
gather necessary facts.
9. The fact that the vehicle has a trade certificate issued under Rule
39, is not in dispute. Contention of petitioner that various documents
including Form No.19 (log book) was itself in the vehicle and was taken in
custody by the respondent no.2, has not been specifically denied.
10. These facts therefore, show that the petitioner had necessary
authorization for use of that vehicle and contention of petitioner that the
vehicle was being used for purposes prescribed in Rule 41 of the Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 therefore, cannot be disbelieved. Petitioner
claims that being "Demonstration Vehicle", it was taken to Amravati for
satisfying the customers needs to be accepted. The fact that in last 5 years,
it had run only 6000 kms. lends support to this narration.
Judgment wp5430.15
11. The vehicle admittedly has not been registered and as such there is
no question of levying one time tax on it, in terms of Section 3 of the
Maharashtra Motor Vehicles (Tax) Act, 1958.
12. In this situation, we find that the action of detention of the vehicle
by respondent no.2 is unjustified. Accordingly we quash and set aside the
same. Writ Petition is thus allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid
terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
