Judgment:
I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. These are nine writ petitions filed against the seizure of the vehicles of the petitioners under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Regional Transport Officers raising the grievance that their vehicles bearing registration numbers mentioned against the number of each of the writ petitions noted below have been seized and detained for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.
W.P. (C) No. Vehicle No.
1. 262 of 2007 OR-02-Y-0604
2. 263 of 2007 OR-19-B-1699
3. 264 of 2007 OR-05-E-4591
4. 265 of 2007 OR-05-N-8777
5. 266 of 2007 OR-05-T-2099
6. 267 of 2007 OR-05-E-0291
7. 291 of 2007 OR-02-C-2588
8. 292 of 2007 OR-25-9667
9. 293 of 2007 OR-02-L-5567
2. Some of the learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the Regional Transport Officers have not proceeded further after seizure of the vehicles but some of the learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the Regional Transport Officers have offered for compounding of the offences, but the petitioners did not agree with the same and thereafter no further action was taken by them.
3. Mr. P. Panda, learned Counsel for the Transport Department has submitted that after seizure of the vehicles or documents, as the case may be, under Section 207(1) of the Act if the RTOs offer compounding of the offences in accordance with law and the owners of the vehicles do not agree to the same, it is within the jurisdiction of the RTOs to cancel the permits and the registration of the vehicles under Sections 55 and 86 of the Act.
4. Section 207(1) of the Act authorizes a police officer or any other person authorized by the State Government to seize and detain a vehicle or document connected to the vehicles. In the instant writ petitions, the Regional Transport Officers who are duly authorized by the State Government have seized the vehicles. Therefore, it cannot be said that the seizure and detention of the vehicles by them are without jurisdiction. However, the power of seizure and detention under Sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Act is limited to the contravention of the provisions of Section 3, i.e., valid driving licence, Section 4, i.e., driving a motor vehicle beyond the age limit of the person fixed by the Government, Section 39, i.e., without having any registration and Sub-section (1) of Section 66, i.e. without permit or in contravention of any condition of the permit. Section 200 of the Act permits the composition of offences committed under Sections 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Sections 183, 184, 186, 189, Sub-section (2) of Sections 190, 191, 192, 194, 196 or Section 198 of the Act.
5. The grounds on the basis of which the registration of a motor vehicle or a permit granted to it, could be cancelled have been given under Sections 55 and 86 of the Act, according to which if a vehicle has been destroyed or has been rendered permanently incapable of use or removed permanently out of India or the registration has been obtained on the basis of fake documents or the engine number or chassis number embossed on the vehicle are different from the numbers entered in the certificate of registration, the registration can be cancelled under Section 55 of the Act. Therefore, the registration of a motor vehicle cannot be cancelled in any other situation. In the similar manner if the grounds mentioned in Section 86 exist only then the permit granted to a motor vehicle can be cancelled or suspended. Some of them are breach of conditions mentioned in Section 84 of the Act, i.e., absence of valid certificate of fitness or unauthorised use of vehicles etc. Therefore, the authority having jurisdiction to cancel the registration or a permit, cannot act on any ground other than the grounds mentioned in Sections 55 and 86 of the Act.
6. Therefore, proceedings regarding cancellation of registration or permit of a vehicle are quite different from the provisions of Section 200 of the Act where the offences may be compounded and cannot be in different ways. However, Section 55 or 86 of the Act, as the case may be, does not authorize the police officer or any other person authorized by the State Government in this behalf to take action under those Sections. It is the Registering Authority and the Transport Authority only, which can take action under Section 55 or 86 of the Act respectively.
7. Therefore, if the Transport Authority on seizure or detention of a vehicle under Section 207 of the Act by him finds that there are grounds to proceed for cancellation or suspension of permit under Section 86, it is open for him to proceed accordingly. But if the Transport Authority finds that any offence mentioned in Section 200 of the Act has been committed which is not covered by Section 55 or 86 of the Act, he has no other option except either to offer compounding of the offences if he is of the opinion that the offences be compounded or refer the complaint to the Magistrate. However, once an offer has been made for compounding of the offences to the owner of the vehicle, it is not open for him to proceed in respect of those offences for cancellation of permit or registration certificate of the vehicle on refusal of that offer by the owner as Section 207 of the Act is relatable to Section 200 (Composition of offences) and Section 208 (Summary disposal of cases) of the Act. Further, the provisions of Section 207, i.e. regarding seizure and detention of the vehicle or documents relating thereto, are temporary provisions as the detention or seizure cannot be kept for an indefinite period. If the police officer or the person authorized by the State Government is of the opinion that the offences be compounded, then an offer should be made to the owner of the vehicle in that regard at the earliest and if the owner protests, such police officer or person has no other option except to file complaint before the Magistrate for taking cognizance under Section 208 of the Act.
8. In the case of State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Nanded Parbhani Z.L.B.M.V. Operator Sangh : [2000]1SCR357 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the power of seizure which has been conferred upon the appropriate authority is in fact a sovereign power of the State and has been delegated to the police officer in discharge of their duties of law enforcement and in the enforcement of an orderly society and therefore the power is to be exercised with care and caution when the pre-condition for exercise of power is fully satisfied.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions .
(i) If the officer who has seized and detained the vehicles or documents of the vehicles, as the case may be, or any other officer who is competent, is of the opinion that an offer be made for composition of offences under Section 200 of the Act to the owner of the vehicle, if not already made, he shall do the same within a reasonable time, preferably within a period of three days from such seizure or detention and it the owner of the vehicle protests against the same, it will be open for him to reduce the amount of composition of offences in accordance with the Government notification, but if still the owner refuses to accept the offer and prayer for release of the vehicle or the document, as the case may be, he shall refer the complaint to the Magistrate without further delay. However, if the owner deposits the amount, the vehicle /documents of the vehicle shall be released immediately in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 207 of the Act.
(ii) Further if in the instant cases, the petitioners deposit 50% of the amount offered (or reduced amount, if any) for composition of the offence by the Regional Transport Officers concerned following the procedure directed in Clause (i) above and file undertaking to the effect that in case the Magistrate passes an order by which more amount than 50% which has been deposited is to be deposited, they shall deposit the same in the Court, their vehicles/documents shall be released within three days from the date of such deposit and undertaking but such release shall be subject to the final orders to be passed on the complaint by the Magistrate which shall be referred to the Regional Transport Officers concerned without further delay.
(iii) It is hereby made clear that in case the Transport Officer/Authority at the very outset decides not to compound the offence and the acts of the owners of the vehicle are covered under Section 55 or 86 of the Act, he may proceed further in accordance with law and in such a situation the above-mentioned order shall not be applicable. It is also made clear that this Court has not considered the liability of the owners of the vehicles to pay road tax or penalty imposed for nonpayment of road tax, which may be dealt with by the concerned authority in accordance with law.