Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20911 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Vikash Kumar S/O Suresh Prasad R/O Bagaha Parash Nagar P.S. Bagaha Dist. W. Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through District Magistrate Bettiah W. Champaran 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer Bagaha Dist. W. Champaran 3. The Officer Incharge Bagaha Police Station (Patkhauli) at Bagaha 4. Avinesh Parashar S.D.O., Bagaha Dist. W. Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21913 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Hatima Mian S/O Ishlam Mian R/O Pathkhuli P.S. Bagaha Dist. W. Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate Bettiah W. Champaran 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer Bagaha Dist. W. Champaran 3. The Officer in Charge Bagaha Police Station [Patkhauli] at Bagaha 4. Avinesh Parashar S.D.O., Bagaha Dist. W. Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 8 30-07-2013 These applications raise common issue inasmuch as relief sought for in both the applications are one and the same. They
Legal Reasoning
have, thus, been heard together with the consent of the parties. Order present will govern them. Relevant facts are drawn from CWJC No. 20911 of 2012 to appreciate the submissions of the parties. The petitioner has prayed for following direction(s) upon the respondents:- (i) To release the vehicle of the petitioner. Patna High Court CWJC No.20911 of 2012 (8) dt.30-07-2013 Page 2 /5 (ii) To issue appropriate directions for taking action against respondent no.2 the then Sub Divisional Officer, Bagha in the District of West Champaran and to direct the respondents particularly the respondent no.2 to pay compensation to the petitioner for his illegal / unauthorized acts. The petitioner claims himself to be the owner of a transport bus bearing Registration Mark and No. BR-1A-P 5425. On 24.10.12 the said bus was seized by the respondent no.2 and the petitioner was fined under diverse head(s) in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner deposited the fine on 25.10.2012. Few days thereafter the bus was released.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Uma Kant Sukla for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur for the respondent no.4 ( the then Sub Divisional Officer, Bagha) and AC to SC-21 for the State. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 as well as the respondent no.4. Before proceeding further, it is noticed that there is agreement at Bar that the first prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous as the bus of the petitioner has already been released on realization of fine. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits Patna High Court CWJC No.20911 of 2012 (8) dt.30-07-2013 Page 3 /5 that the Sub Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to seize the bus and impose penalty/fine under diverse penal Sections of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short ‘Act’). The said Officer, therefore, acted malafidely inasmuch as he had no jurisdiction under the Act to take any such action under the Act. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, on the other hand, submitted that only few days prior to 24.10.2012 one of the buses covered by these two writ petitions had met with an accident resulting in death of one person on spot and causing serious injuries to the two other persons including driver. This caused public uproar. A police case was registered. The Sub Divisional Officer on the relevant date while moving on road again found the bus being driven in rash and negligent manner inasmuch as they were overloaded up to roof top. It was a festival day. The vehicle went out of control of the driver . However, major accident was averted. The bus was stopped and the driver was directed to produce documents such as Registration certificate, carriage permit, insurance paper, route permit etc. Papers were not produced by the driver. The Sub Divisional Magistrate having found so, imposed fine and the vehicle was directed to be parked in the police station. The petitioner subsequently deposited the fine and the bus was released. The matter was referred to the District Transport Officer. The fine Patna High Court CWJC No.20911 of 2012 (8) dt.30-07-2013 Page 4 /5 imposed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate for violation of statutory provisions of the Act was approved by the District Transport Officer. The question is whether the Sub Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to call for the relevant papers and thereafter impose fine which was subsequently approved/confirmed by the District Transport Officer. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel, draws attention of the Court to the provisions contained in Section 200 of the Act which provides for composition of certain offences under the relevant Sections/ provisions of the Act and authorization of officers or authorities by the Government in this regard. He has drawn attention of the Court to the relevant instructions/Circulars issued by the Government. The Circular issued by the Government in the Department of Transport dated 30.3.2002 authorizes the Sub Divisional Officer to effect seizure and take necessary steps in terms of the Act. By another instruction/circular issued by the Transport Commissioner quantum of fine under diverse penal Sections of the Act have been set out which pertain to regulation of the traffic and the violation of those provisions which can be found being committed in face of the authorized /competent authority. On a consideration of these provisions it cannot be inferred that the Sub Divisional Officer/Magistrate acted without authority of law in taking impugned action against the erring Patna High Court CWJC No.20911 of 2012 (8) dt.30-07-2013 Page 5 /5 transport vehicle. It further appears that on imposition of fine by the respondent- Sub Divisional Magistrate the same was later paid by the petitioner and the vehicle/bus was released. The petitioner could have refused to pay the fine and instead face prosecution which is not the case at hand. It also seen that having imposed the fine the matter was referred to the District Transport Officer who also passed an order imposing fine upon the petitioner and thereby confirming the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. This Court, therefore, finds sufficient material to overrule the contention of the petitioner that the respondent Sub Divisional Officer acted de hors the provisions of the Act and the instruction/Circular issued thereunder by the Government/appropriate authority. application. Seen thus, this Court is not persuaded to grant the Dismissed. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/-