http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: NIRMALA JAGDISHCHANDRA KABRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      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  used  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."      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 permit, 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    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  whether  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."      There is  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 provision of the  Act. Therefore,  the mandamus  sought for  cannot be issued, as referred to earlier.      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  on 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 Stat 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  which  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. I  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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 refuse by the High Court. The  learned counsel sought reliance on a judgment of the Madras  High Court  in N.  Krishnasami Chetty & Ors. vs. The Licensing  Officer [Air  1988 Madras  274]. The  learned Judges have  not correctly  appreciated the  legal position. Therefore, it is not correct in view of the above law. It is accordingly overruled.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.