AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, issue involved is whether the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation can detain the vehicle for non-payment of parking charges when the petitioner is not at fault.
The facts which are not disputed can be summarized as follows :
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is owner of heavy goods vehicle bearing registration No.MH-06 AQ-0258 (the said vehicle) which is only source of his livelihood. The petitioner contends that on 16.10.2014 as the said vehicle was carrying overload, the said vehicle was intercepted by the enforcement squad of respondent No.2 – the Regional Transport Officer for violation of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act of 1988) and the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1959 (Rules of 1959).
For the said violation, the officer of respondent No.2 imposed fine of Rs.43,600/- and seized the vehicle of the petitioner and took it to the depot of respondent No.5 – Depot Manager, State Transport Corporation, Aurangabad. The petitioner deposited the fine imposed by the officer of respondent No.2 on 02.03.2015 against which the said officer also issued an receipt bearing No.470741/6. No doubt the petitioner from 03.05.2015 did not take any steps seeking release order of his vehicle immediately and he approached the office of respondent No.2 seeking release order in the year 2022 and accordingly on 31.05.2022 the office of respondent No.2 issued a release order of petitioner’s vehicle under Rule 18A Sub-Rule 3 of Rules of 1959.
The petitioner on 01.10.2022 along with the said release order approached the respondent No.5 seeking release of his vehicle from the depot of respondent No.5, however, the respondent No.5 instead of releasing his vehicle demanded Rs.1,71,513/- towards parking charges and detained the said vehicle and thus the petitioner is before this Court seeking release of his vehicle.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the outset, the action of respondent No.2 itself is contrary to the provisions of Rule 18A of the Rules of 1959 as instead of taking seized vehicle of the petitioner to the nearest police station, the officer of respondent No.2 took it to the depot of respondent No.5 and parked the said vehicle. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that had the vehicle been taken to the police station, after paying the amount of fine for release of vehicle, the petitioner would have received a custody of his vehicle, however, since the officer of respondent No.2 after seizure of his vehicle took it to the depot of respondent No.5, now the respondent No.5 has demanded the parking charges from the petitioner for no fault on his part. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to the provisions of Rule 18A of the Rule of 1959 which reads thus :
“18-A Procedure for seizure and detention of motor vehicles in case of Government under Section 12B (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
authorised officer’) has reason to believe that the tax payable in respect of any motor vehicle has remained unpaid for more than thirty days after it has become due, such officer, by an order in Form ‘DA’ and served on the registered owner or the person in possession or control of such vehicle or its driver, seize the motor vehicle. After such order is made, the authorised officer shall direct that the vehicle be taken to the nearest police station mentioned in such order, for detention. If there be any goods or articles in such vehicle, the authorised officer shall make an inventory of goods or articles found in the vehicle, and ask the person from whom the motor vehicle is seized, to remove the same. If such person fails or refuse to drive the vehicle to the nearest Police Station mentioned in the order, the authorised officer may arrange to have the vehicle driven to the police station. No officer seizing or detaining a motor vehicle shall be responsible for safe custody of any goods or articles therein, and the registered owner or his representative duly authorised by him in writing shall make such arrangement for their safe custody as he deem fit.
(2)If the registered owner of the motor vehicle so seized and detained or his representative duly authorised by him in writing, if present, fails to pay the [tax and present, if any,] due or to produce necessary proof or payment of [tax and interest, if any], before the expiry of ten days from the date of the seizure, the taxation authority shall cause the vehicle to be further detained till the [tax and interest, if any.] due is paid or proof of payment of the [tax and interest, if any,] due is furnished. Where no such payment is made or proof of payment produced within reasonable period after the expiry of the period aforesaid, the Taxation Authority shall forward a certificate of recovery of the [tax and interest, if any,] as arrears of land revenue to the Collector of the district in which registered owner of the vehicle resides.
(3)If the registered owner of the motor vehicle so seized or detained or his representative duly authorised by him in writing produces before an authorised officer or a Taxation Authority, proof evidencing that the [tax and interest, if any,] due has been paid, the authorised officer or the Taxation Authority, as the case may be, shall issue an order in Form ‘DR’ to the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station where the vehicle is kept in detention, to release the vehicle.]”
The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 on the other hand would submit that in such contingency the respondent No.3 has issued general instructions on 03.11.2015 to all the depot managers regarding parking charges for seized vehicles at the behest of respondent No.2 @ Rs.50/- per day and would thus submit that the action of respondent No.5 in demanding the parking charges from the petitioner and detaining the vehicle for non-payment of the sum is legal and proper.
The learned AGP appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that after the petitioner’s vehicle was seized on 16.10.2014 the same was taken to depot of respondent No.5 and after the petitioner paid the fine imposed by office of Respondent No.2 on 02.03.2015, the office of respondent No.2 issued a release order in favour of the petitioner on 31.05.2022 and on request of petitioner, the respondent No.2 has also sent communication to the office of respondent No.5 to release the vehicle of the petitioner, however, the respondent No.5 has not paid any heed. The learned AGP, therefore, submits that the respondent No.2 has already issued communication to the respondent No.5 on 18.10.2022 to release the vehicle of the petitioner.
After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and the learned AGP, this Court finds that in fact the officer of respondent No.2 ought to have adhered to the provisions of Rule 18A of taking the seized vehicle to the nearest police station instead of which the vehicle of the petitioner was taken to the depot of respondent No.5. It is not that the petitioner has taken his vehicle to the depot of respondent No.5 but it is pursuant to an action taken by the respondent No.2 that the said vehicle was parked in the depot of respondent No.5 for which the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. When the petitioners vehicle was taken to the depot of respondent No.5, the petitioners was not informed that for parking his vehicle in the depot of respondent No.5, the petitioner would be liable to pay the parking charges. Even though the learned counsel for respondent No.4 has pressed into the service the general instructions issued by the respondent No.3 regarding demanding parking charges from the owners of vehicles, the respondent No.5 also did not intimate the petitioner that the parking charges should be paid by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that when the vehicle of petitioner has been taken pursuant to the seizure at the behest of respondent No.2, the petitioner cannot be asked to pay the parking charges and it is a matter between the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.5. We, therefore, find that the action of respondent No.5 of demanding the parking charges from the petitioner for release of his vehicle is bad in law and without prior intimation to the petitioner when his vehicle was parked in depot of respondent No.5. We, therefore, are of the view that the action of respondent No.5 thereby detaining the vehicle of petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside by directing the respondent No.5 to release the vehicle of the petitioner. Before parting, we find that some lapses are also attributed to the petitioner for not approaching the office of respondent No.2 for almost seven years to seek release of his vehicle and, therefore, we find that some cost needs to be imposed on the petitioner. We, therefore, pass the following order:
O R D E R
A. Writ petition is allowed.
B. The respondent No.5 is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No.MH-06 AQ-0258 forthwith subject to petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five only) with the respondent No.5.
C. The Rule is thus made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.