ORDER
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Whether the action of the District Transport officer, Kapurthala to seize bus No. PB09A-2081 belonging to M/s New Rana Bus Service, Hoshiarpur of which petitioner-Karamjit Singh is partner is legally correct and justified is the only question which arises for determination by the Court in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. There is no dispute between the parties that M/s New Rana Bus Service is engaged in the transport business and it has been plying buses on the strength of permits granted by the competent authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1988 Act’). The bus in question is being operated on Halandhar-Garh-shankar via Kitna route on the basis of permit No. l41/Regular/Stage/89 issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar. Road tax in respect of the said bus has been paid upto September 30, 1999 and the fitness certificate of the vehicle stands renewed up to June 22, 2000. M/s New Rana Bus Service is plying three other buses bearing registration Nos. PB-09-5681, PB-09-6184, PB-09-6381 on different/routes and there is some controversy about the deposit of tax in respect of those buses. Petitioner’s grievance is that the District Transport Officer, Kapurthala (respondent No. 2) has, without any rhyme and reason and without any legal authority vesting in him, impounded the bus in question on 1.10.1999 adversely affecting his fundamental right to carry on business. He has relied on Section 207 of the 1988 Act to show that respondent No. 2 does not have the authority to seize the bus in question.
3. The respondents have justified the seizure and impounding of the bus No. PB-09A-3081 on the ground that its owner M/s New Rana Bus Service has not paid Rs. 3,36,036/- towards the tax due under the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1924 Act’). They have averred that the company has paid road tax for bus No. PB-09A-3081, only for the period ending on September 30,1999 and it has to pay Rs. 31,060/- including penalty and interest in respect of buses No. PB-09-5681 and PB-09A-3081 for third quarter of 1998-99 and third quarter of 1999-2000. The respondents have further averred that the bus in question has been rightly impounded by respondent No. 2 under Section 14-B of the 1924 Act.
4. In the replication filed by him, the petitioner has reiterated that road tax in respect of the bus in question has been paid up to September 30, 1999 and tax for the third quarter is required to be deposited on or before 31st day of October of the year and that as on 1.10.1999 nothing was due in respect of the impounded bus.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 207 of the 19,88 Act, Section 14-B of the 1924 Act and Rule 73 of the Motor Vehicles (central) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), which have bearing on the question raised in the petition read as under:-
“The 1988 Act:
207. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration, permit, etc.-(1) 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 of Section 3 or 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:
Provided that where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 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 acknowledgement in respect thereof.
(2) Where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose. The 1924 Act:
14-B. (1) Any officer of the Transport department, not below the rank of Assistant District Transport Officer authorised by a general or special order, in this behalf, by the Commissioner, may require the driver of any motor vehicle at any place to stop the vehicle and cause it to remain stationary so long as may be reasonably necessary for the purpose of satisfying himself that the amount of the tax due in accordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of such vehicle has been paid.
(2) Where any tax due in respect of any vehicle has not been paid, any officer referred to in sub-section (1) may seize and detain such vehicle and take or cause to be taken such steps as he may consider necessary for the safe custody of the vehicle until it is produced before the Licensing Officer of the area concerned, within a reasonable time or until the tax due in respect of the vehicle is paid :
Provided that where the vehicle so seized is a non-transport vehicle, such officer may release the vehicle after obtaining a bond for a sum not exceeding five hundred rupees from the driver or the owner or any person, having possession or control, of the vehicle, as the case may be, for depositing the tax within the period specified in the bond.
(3) Any officer of the Department of Transport referred to in sub-section (2), may for the purpose of this Act enter at any time between sun rise and sunset, in any premises, where he has reason to believe that motor vehicle is kept in contravention of the provisions of this Act.
The Rules :
73. Tax Clearance certificate to be submitted to the Testing Station.- No authorised testing station shall accept an application for the grant or renewal of a certificate of fitness unless the same is accompanied by a tax clearance certificate in such form as may be specified by the State Government, from the Regional Transport Officer or Motor Vehicles Inspector having jurisdiction in the area to the effect that the vehicle is not in arrears of motor vehicle tax or any compounding fee referred to in sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 86.”
A bare reading of Section 207 of the 1988 Act shows that any Police Officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government can seize and detain an motor vehicle if he has reason to believe that the same has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 of 1988 Act or without permit required by Section 66(1) thereof or in contravention of any condition of the permit relating to route. Likewise under Section 14-B of the 1924 Act any officer of the Transport Department not below the rank of Assistant District Transport Officer authorised by a general or special order issued in this behalf may stop any motor vehicle and cause it to remain stationary for the purpose of satisfying Himself that the amount of tax due in accordance with the provisions of the 1928 Act in respect of such vehicle has been paid and if it is found that tax due in respect of said vehicle has not been paid, the officer may seize and detain such vehicle. Rule 72 of the Rules lays down that an application for grant or renewal of certificate of fitness shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by a tax clearance certificate issued by the Transport Officer or Motor Vehicles Inspector having jurisdiction in the area indicating that the vehicle is not in arrears of motor vehicles tax or any compounding fee referred to in sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 86 of the 1988 Act.
6. The above analysis of the relevant statutory provisions leaves no room for doubt that authority can detain, seize or impound a motor vehicle only if one of the conditions specified in Section 207 of the 1988 Act or Section 14-B of the 1924 Act is satisfied. In the present case, respondent No. 2 has not seized the vehicle in question on the ground of violation of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or Section 66(1) of the 1988 Act or contravention of any condition of the permit or non-payment of tax in terms of the provisions or the 1924 Act. Rather, it is an admitted position that the tax due upto September 30, 1999 has ready been paid by the owner. That apart, we can also draw an inference about the payment of tax and other dues in respect of the vehicle in question because fitness certificate has been issued by the competent authority in terms of Rule 73 of the Rules. Thus, there did not exist any legally permissible ground for seizure and impounding of the vehicle bearing No. PB-09-A-3081. The respondent have tried to justify the impugned action on the ground that M/s New Rana Bus Service is in arrears of tax in respect of other motor vehicles owned by it. Shri Rupinder Khosla has put forward an additional reason to justify the impugned action by stating that tax in respect of the vehicle in question has also not been paid for the third quarter of 1999-2000. We have given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. We are convinced that the action of respondent No. 2 to seize and impound bus No. PB-09A-3081 is wholly illegal and unjustified and respondent No. 2 is guilty of having exceeded his authority. Learned Deputy Advocate General could not controvert the fact that tax in respect of the vehicle in question due as on upto September 30, 1999 has been paid and nothing was due on the bus in question as on 1.10.1999 i.e. the date of seizure. Therefore, respondent No. 2 did not have the authority to take action under Section 14-B(1) and (3) of the 1924 Act. The alleged non-payment of tax which became due on 31.10.1999 cannot, in our considered view, be used as a ground to justify the illegal seizure of vehicle on 1.10.1999.
7. For the reason mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed; Seizure and impounding of bus No. PB-09A-3081 is declared illegal and quashed with the direction to respondent No. 2 to release the said vehicle forthwith. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from making recovery of the tax, if any due from the petitioner or M/s New Rana Bus Service, Hoshiarpur in respect of the vehicle in question and other motor vehicles owned by them.