STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus NANDED- PARBHANI Z.L.B.M.V., OPERATOR SANGH

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 21-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
NANDED- PARBHANI Z.L.B.M.V., OPERATOR SANGH 
JANUARY 21, 2000 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
Section 207(1}-Contravention of conditions prescribed undei--Power 
to seize and detain vehicles-Luxury bus carried passengers in excess of the C 
number allowed by permit-Seizure and detention of-Validity-Held: Power 
has to be exercised with care and caution and only when pre-condition is 
satisfied-Canying of excess passengers is not a contravention contemplated 
under S.207( 1 }-- Hence, seizure and detention of vehicle illegal-Award of Rs. 
10,000 as compensation for illegal detention of vehicle upheld-Maharashtra 
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rr. 72(1)(ix) and 74(6). 
D 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Basic Rules-Literal construction--When the language of the statute is 
clear it has to be given effect to---Hence, a construction which requires for its 
support additional substitution or rejection of words has to be avoided. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Purpose for which the vehicle may be used''-Meaning of---ln the 
context of S. 207( 1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court alleging 
that the police authorities illegally seized and detained the luxury buses 
belonging to the respondent under Section 207(1) of the Mutor Vehicles 
Act, 1988 on the ground that the buses were found to be carrying persons 
E 
F 
in excess of the number allowed by the permit. The High Court allowed the G 
petition and awarded Rs. 10,000 as compensation for illegal detention of 
the vehicles. Hence this appeal. 
The following question arose before this Court :-
Whether under Section 207(1) of the Act, the appropriate authority H 
357 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20G:J] l S.C.R. 
A can be said to have the power to detain a vehicle, the vehicle being found 
to be used in contravention of the conditions of permit relating to the 
number of passengers, which could be carried in the vehicle? 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The power of seizure has been conferred upon the 
appropriate authority, which power is in fact a sovereign power of the State 
and has been delegctted to the police officers in discharge of their duties 
of law enforcement and in the enforcement of an orderly society. The 
power, therefore, is required to be :exercised with care and caution and the 
C power has to be exercised only when the pre-condition for exercise of power 
is fully satisfied. [362-G] 
1.2. The police officer would be authorised to detain a vehicle, if he 
has reason to believe that the vehicle has been or is being used in contraven· 
D tion of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 
or without the permit required under Section 66(1) 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. (363-FJ 
2.1. The present case is concerned only with the contravention of the 
E conilition of permit. The conditi11n of permit relating to the route 11n which 
or the area in which or the purpose for whkh the vehicle could be used if 
contravened, would only authorise the police officer to detain the vehicle and 
not each and every condition of permit on being violated or contravened, the 
police officer would be entitled to detain the vehicle. (363-G-H] 
F 
2.2. It is not possible to accept the view that the expression 'purpose 
for which the vehicle may be used" occurring in Section 207 (1) 11f the Act 
could be construed to mean that when the vehicle is found to be carrying 
passengers more than the number prescribed in the permit, the purpose 
11f user is otherwise. The purpose '7ould only refer to a contingency when 
G a vehicle having a ptnnit of stag<l carriage is used as a contract carriage 
or vice versa or where a vehicle having a permit for stage carriage or 
contract carriage is used as a goods vehicle and vice versa. But carrying 
passengers more than the number specified in the permit will not be a 
violation of the purpose for which the permit is granted. If the legislature 
H really wanted to confer power of detention on the police officer for violation 
' . 
, 
STATE v. NANDED-PARBHANI Z.LB.M.V., OPERATOR 
359 
of any co111dition of tine p:rmit, then there would not have b:e111 the necessity A 
11f adding the expressio111 "relating to. the route 0111 which or the area in 
waich or t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.