2000 (1) TMI 982 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the power to detain a vehicle for contravention of permit conditions.

Summary:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against a judgment of the Bombay High Court regarding the detention and seizure of luxury buses for carrying passengers exceeding the permit limit. The High Court held that such detention was unauthorized under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The association of bus owners had petitioned the High Court, arguing that the seizures were illegal. The State contended that exceeding the permit limit justified detention. The Court analyzed the Act and rules, concluding that only specific permit violations justified detention, not passenger numbers. The key issue was whether exceeding passenger limits in a vehicle contravened permit conditions under Section 207(1).

The State argued that any permit violation, including passenger limits, justified detention to ensure public safety. However, the respondent's counsel maintained that only specific permit conditions related to route, area, or purpose could trigger detention. The Court examined Section 207(1) in detail, emphasizing the need for clear statutory interpretation without altering the language's plain meaning. It cited legal precedents to support the principle of interpreting unambiguous words as intended by the legislature. The Court determined that only contraventions related to route, area, or purpose justified vehicle detention, not every permit violation.

The Court highlighted that the power to detain vehicles under Section 207(1) was a sovereign state power delegated to police for law enforcement. It emphasized the importance of exercising this power judiciously based on clear statutory language. The Court rejected the State's argument that exceeding passenger limits constituted a permit violation justifying detention. It concluded that the High Court's decision was correct, and the compensation awarded for unauthorized detention was valid. The appeal was dismissed, with no costs awarded.