V.N.Khare, J. - (1.) WHEN these petitions were filed, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. In pursuance of those orders respondents have filed a counter affidavit in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30122 of 1994. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that since the stand taken by the respondents is identical in all the writ petitions the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 30122 of 1994 may be read in all the petitions in which counter affidavits had been called for. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that these petitions may be disposed of at (he admission stage. Accordingly, we propose to decide all these petitions finally.
(2.) THESE petitions can be split into three sets of writ petitions The first set consists of writ petitions No. 30109 of 1994, 30122 of 1994, 30135 of 1994, 30149 of 1994, 30151 of 1994, 30317 of 1994, 30670 of 1994, 31034 of 1994, 31131 of 1994, 31123 of 1994, 3I124of 1994, 31125 of 1994, and 31129, of 1994 and 30933 of 1994 the second set of writ petitions are 30111 of 1994, 31318 of 1994 and the third set of writ petition are 30016 of 1994 & 30676 of 1994. The Petitioners in all these writ petitions are carrying on transport business. For that purpose they hold temporary/permanent contracts or stage carriage permits and are operating on different routes within the State of U. P. It appears that while the petitioners were plying their vehicles the respondents seized their vehicles either on the ground that vehicles were being plied in contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of Section 39 or without the permits required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the Act (Motor Vehicles Act 1988) or in contravention of condition of the permits relating to the routes. It is that stage the petitioners approached this Court by means of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed for issue of directions either to the respondents or to the appropriate Court for releasing their vehicles so seized. In the first set of writ petitions the prayer is that the person authorised by the State Government may be directed to release/their vehicles. In the second set of writ petitions the prayer is that the Circular dated 18th August 1994 may be quashed and further the matter may be referred to the respective Courts for trial of the offences in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Cods while in the third group, it is alleged that the petitioners moved applications before the respective Chief Judicial Magistrate for release of their vehicles under Section 451 CrPC but that their applications were turned down on the ground that Courts were not competent to deal with the matter, Sri L P. Naithani learned counsel for the petitioners urged that police officers or persons authorised by the State Government have no power to release the vehicle so seized and as it is incumbent upon the police officers or the persons so authorised to refer the complaints to the competent court of law for trial of offence. In substance the argument is that executive authorities have no jurisdiction to try the offences alleged to be committed by the petitioners. On the other hand, the stand of respondents is that It is only the police officers or persons so authorised who are competent to try the offence.
(3.) SECTION 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides that any police officer or person so 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 4 or SECTION 40 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, seized and detain the vehicle. It may be seen, there are three situations where a vehicle may be seized and detained, firstly when he has reason to believe that the motor vehicle has been used in contravention of the provisions of SECTION 3 or SECTION 4 or SECTION 39 of the Act, secondly, when the vehicle has been or is being used without permit required by sub-section (1) of SECTION 66 of the Act and thirdly, when the vehicle has been or Is being used 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. Thus a police officer or person authorised can exercise power of seziure and detention in three situations, namely when he has reason to believe that the motor vehicle has been used in contravention of the provisions of SECTION 3 or SECTION 4 or SECTION 39 of the Act, secondly when the Vehicle has been or is being used without permit required by subsection (1) of section 66 of the Act and thirdly when the vehicle has been or is being used 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. SECTIONs 177 to 210 (Chapter XIII) of the Act lay down that contravention of any provision of the Act or of any rule, regulation or notification made thereunder shall constitute an offence and provide the penalities for the offences so committed and the procedure therefor. Under SECTION 192 of the Act the offence committed by driving a motor vehicle or causing or allowing a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section 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 or to the maximum number of passengers and maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on the vehicle, is punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to two the thousand rupees and for any second or subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, on with both with the proviso that no Court shall, except for reasons to be stated in writing, impose a fine of less than five hundred rupees for any such second or subsequent offence. SECTION 200 (1) of the Act provides that any offence whether committed before or after the commencement of this Act punishable under SECTION 177, section. 178, SECTION 179. SECTION 180,. SECTION 181, section 182, sub-section (1) of sub-section (2) of section 183, SECTION 184, SECTION 187, SECTION 189, SECTION 191, SECTION 192, SECTION 194, SECTION 196 or SECTION 198 of the Act may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by such officers or authorities and for such amount as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify in this behalf. SECTION 200 (2) of the Act further provides that where an offence has been compounded under sub-section (1), the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of such offence. By virtue of the afore noticed provisions the plying of vehicle by any person without a permit or without registration certificate or contrary to the conditions of the permit is an offence and any police officer or person authorised by the State Government is empowered to seize and detain the vehicle if he has reason to believe that the motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of the Act.;