G. Mallesham vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4537 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

                 WRIT PETITION No.9665 OF 2014
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the

respondents 2 and 3 in seizing and not releasing petitioner's vehicle,

i.e., John Deer Tractor (Dozer) bearing registration No.MH 26 K 5686,

as being legal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14

and 21 of the Constitution of India..

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government

Pleader for Transport appearing for respondents-authorities, and

perused the record.

3. Petitioner contends that he had purchased the subject vehicle

from M/s Shriram Finance and was plying the same for eking out his

livelihood; that on the fateful day, the respondents-authorities seized

the said vehicle under Vehicle Check Report, dt.17.02.2013, noting

therein certain violations of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988; and that the said seizure is illegal inasmuch as he is a bonafide

purchaser of the said vehicle, which has been sold to him by M/s

Shriram Finance.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the

respondents-authorities submits that apart from the violations noted

in the Vehicle Check Report, the respondents have also found that the

engine and chassis number found engraved on the vehicle are at

variance with the chassis and engine numbers mentioned in the RC of

the vehicle and the same was also mentioned by the respondents-

authorities on the top of the Vehicle Check Report; that since the

identity of the vehicle that was seized was not matching with the

registration certificate produced by the petitioner, the respondents-

authorities have seized the same and that it is also not known

whether the said vehicle was involved in commission of any crime.

Thus, the learned Government Pleader seeks to justify the action of

the respondents-authorities contending that no illegality can be found

with the action of the respondents-authorities in seizing the subject

vehicle.

5. Having regard to the submissions as made above, since the

subject vehicle was seized by the respondents-authorities noting

various deficiencies, the respondents-authorities have to initiate

appropriate proceedings under the provisions of M.V. Act and cannot

continue seizure of the subject vehicle indefinitely. This Court in

Saleem Tours and Travels v. Joint Transport Commissioner and

Another1, has held at para 16 of the said judgment that 'The other

important aspect which needs reiteration even at the risk of repetition is

that the seizure cannot be kept in force indefinitely or for unduly long

period. It must be remembered that except in rare cases, detention of

the vehicle is not necessary for holding an enquiry and taking

necessary action for contravention of the conditions of permit. No

purpose will be served if the vehicle is detained and kept in the custody

2000(4) ALD 501

of the police or Transport department for weeks and months together.

The power conferred by Section 207 as all other statutory powers

should be exercised in a reasonable manner, more so because it is, by

its very nature, a drastic power.'. By observing so, the Court further

went on to hold at para 17(5) of the judgment that 'In exceptional

cases where there is reasonable apprehension that the vehicle will not

be available for taking further action or the ultimate order passed in the

light of the enquiry cannot be implemented on account of any special

facts and circumstances, the competent Transport authority can

withhold the release or stipulate any appropriate conditions for release

other than the payment of tax not yet determined. In such a case, it is

expected of them that the reasons are recorded in writing.".

6. In view of the above, respondents-authorities are directed to

pass orders recording reasons for not releasing the subject vehicle

and communicate the same to the petitioner, if not already done.

7. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed

of. No order as to costs.

8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

the light of this final order.

_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 12th September, 2022.

gra

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.9665 OF 2014

Dt.12.09.2022

gra