NIRMALA JAGDISHCHANDRA KABRA versus THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 78 · Decided: 14-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NIRMALA JAGDISHCHANDRA KABRA 
v. 
THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 14, 1997 
B 
(K..RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
S.207-Contract carriage-Being used as stage carriage-Motor Vehicle 
C Inspector imposed penalty-Writ petitio11 seeking a declaration that the 
authorities had no power to seize or deta.in the vehicle dismissed by High 
Court-Held, the authority had rightly detained the vehicle for contraventio11 
of the conditions of the pennit-High Court rightly refused the relief-The very 
pennit which grants the contract for carriage of passengers should contain the 
names of the passengers to cany from one destination to another without 
D picking up or setting down en route for hire or reward but when the holder of 
pennit is another and pennits them to cany the passengers and makes the 
contract de hors those mentioned i11 the list of passengers enclosed to the 
pennit as contract carriage and takes the passengers from one destination to 
another, even without picking up or setting down e11 route, the necessary 
E · consequence would be that the vehicle has been used or is being used as a 
stage carriage and not a contract carriage. 
N. Krishnasami Chetty & Ors. v. The Licensing Officer, AIR (1988) 
Mad. 274, overruled. 
p 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (c) 
No. 2622 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.96 of the Gujarat High 
Court in L.P.A. No. 1430/96 in S.C.A. No. 7565 of 1996. 
G 
Arun Jaitley and S.C. Patel for the Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
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. 
H 1430/96. The Motor Vehicle Inspector had imposed penalty of Rs. 1,000 
78 
NJ. KABRAv. TPT. COMMNR. 
79 
etc. for violation of the conditions of the contract carriage permit. It was A 
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 
B 
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 W7 of the Motor C 
_ Vehicles Act, 1988 solely on the allegation of collection. of in-
dividual 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 W7 of the Act D 
postulates the power to detain vehicle used without certificate of registra· 
tion 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 E 
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 f; 
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 contraven· 
tion 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." 
G. 
H 
A 
B 
80 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 2S.C.R. 
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 condition
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.