Holding

Section 207(1) does not confer power to detain a vehicle for violation of the passenger‑capacity condition; detention is permissible only for breaches of route, area, or purpose conditions of the permit.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed a Bombay High Court order that had declared the seizure and detention of luxury buses illegal and awarded Rs.10,000 compensation to the bus operators. The police had seized the buses under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that they were carrying passengers in excess of the number permitted. The Supreme Court examined whether the phrase "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" includes the passenger‑capacity condition. Relying on literal construction, the Court held that Section 207(1) authorises detention only for violations of route, area, or purpose conditions, not for exceeding the permitted number of passengers. Consequently, the seizure was unlawful and the compensation awarded by the High Court was upheld. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers a police officer to detain a vehicle for contravention of the permit condition relating to the number of passengers allowed.
Whether the expression "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" can be interpreted to include the passenger‑capacity condition.
Whether a literal construction of the statutory language precludes a broader purposive interpretation.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 207(1), s. 3, s. 39, s. 4, s. 66(1)

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActSection 207vehicle seizurepermit conditionspassenger capacitystatutory interpretationliteral constructionpolice powerscompensation for illegal detention

Judgment

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. A
v.
NANDED- PARBHANI Z.L.B.M.V., OPERATOR SANGH

JANUARY 21, 2000

[G.B. PATTANAIK AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] B

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

Section 207(1}-Contravention of conditions prescribed undei--Power
to seize and detain vehicles-Luxury bus carried passengers in excess of the C
number allowed by permit-Seizure and detention of-Validity-Held: Power
has to be exercised with care and caution and only when pre-condition is
satisfied-Canying of excess passengers is not a contravention contemplated
under S.207( 1}-- Hence, seizure and detention of vehicle illegal-Award of Rs.
10,000 as compensation for illegal detention of vehicle upheld-Maharashtra
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rr. 72(1)(ix) and 74(6). D
Interpretation of Statutes :

Basic Rules-Literal construction--When the language of the statute is
clear it has to be given effect to---Hence, a construction which requires for its
support additional substitution or rejection of words has to be avoided. E

Words and Phrases :

"Purpose for which the vehicle may be used''-Meaning of---ln the
context of S. 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
F
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court alleging
that the police authorities illegally seized and detained the luxury buses
belonging to the respondent under Section 207(1) of the Mutor Vehicles
Act, 1988 on the ground that the buses were found to be carrying persons
in excess of the number allowed by the permit. The High Court allowed the G
petition and awarded Rs. 10,000 as compensation for illegal detention of
the vehicles. Hence this appeal.

The following question arose before this Court :-

Whether under Section 207(1) of the Act, the appropriate authority H
357
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20G:J] l S.C.R.
A can be said to have the power to detain a vehicle, the vehicle being found
to be used in contravention of the conditions of permit relating to the
number of passengers, which could be carried in the vehicle?

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

B HELD : 1.1. The power of seizure has been conferred upon the
appropriate authority, which power is in fact a sovereign power of the State
and has been delegctted to the police officers in discharge of their duties
of law enforcement and in the enforcement of an orderly society. The
power, therefore, is required to be :exercised with care and caution and the
C power has to be exercised only when the pre-condition for exercise of power
is fully satisfied. [362-G]

1.2. The police officer would be authorised to detain a vehicle, if he
has reason to believe that the vehicle has been or is being used in contraven·
D tion of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
or without the permit required under Section 66(1) 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. (363-FJ

2.1. The present case is concerned only with the contravention of the
E conilition of permit. The conditi11n of permit relating to the route 11n which
or the area in which or the purpose for whkh the vehicle could be used if
contravened, would only authorise the police officer to detain the vehicle and
not each and every condition of permit on being violated or contravened, the
police officer would be entitled to detain the vehicle. (363-G-H]

F 2.2. It is not possible to accept the view that the expression 'purpose
for which the vehicle may be used" occurring in Section 207 (1) 11f the Act
could be construed to mean that when the vehicle is found to be carrying
passengers more than the number prescribed in the permit, the purpose
11f user is otherwise. The purpose '7ould only refer to a contingency when
G a vehicle having a ptnnit of stag<l carriage is used as a contract carriage
or vice versa or where a vehicle having a permit for stage carriage or
contract carriage is used as a goods vehicle and vice versa. But carrying
passengers more than the number specified in the permit will not be a
violation of the purpose for which the permit is granted. If the legislature
H really wanted to confer power of detention on the police officer for violation
.
',

STATE v. NANDED-PARBHANI Z.LB.M.V., OPERATOR 359

of any co111dition of tine p:rmit, then there would not have b:e111 the necessity A
11f adding the expressio111 "relating to. the route 0111 which or the area in
waich or the purpose for which the vt'llicle may be used". The use:r of llie
aforesaid expressio111 cannot 1Je i:p19red nor can it be said to be a tautol03)'.
[3'4-B·C]
3. On seeing the different columns of the Form of Permit (Form B
P.Co.T.) meant in respect of a tourist vehicle, which is issued under Rule
72(1)(ix) and Rule 74(6) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 19:19,
it cannot be held that carrying passengers beyo111d the number mentioned
in Column 5, indicating the seating capacity, would be a violation of the
conditions of permit relating to either the route or the area or the purpose C
for which the permit is granted. [364-D·E]

4. When the lant;nage of a statute is fairly and reasonably cleru-, then
inconvenience or hardships are no co111siderations for refusing to give efil:Ct
to that meaning. It is not the contention of the counsel appearina for llie
State nor can it be said that on giving a plain meaning to the words used D
in Section 207 (1) of the Act there will be any absurdity or would r--:~te th2
statute offending any provisioas of the Constitutio111. The il:ltl:::itlon of the
lq:islature is required to be gathered from the lan8Qage used and, tliert.?-
fore, a construction, l7bich requires for its support additio:m.I substitution
of words or w~lich n::mlts in rejection of words ias meaningless hos to It.= E
avoid:id. [363-A; E]

Emperor v. Benoarilal Sarma, Aill (1945) PC 48 and Kanai/al Sur v.
Paramnidhi Sadhu Khan, AIR (1957) SC 1107, relied 0111.

Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11 CI & F 85, referred to. F

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
74 of :WC:J.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.6.99 of the Bombay High G
Court in Crl. W.P. No. 362 of 1998.

B.N. Dcshmukh, S.S. Shinde and G.B. Sathe for the Appellants.

A.M. Khanwilkar, Mrs. V.D. Khanna and S.M. Jadhav for the
Respondent. H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2CO!J] 1 S.C.R.
A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PATIANAliC, J. Leaved granted.

This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the
B division Bench of Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 362 of 1998. The High Court has held that when a luxury
bus carries passengers, excess in number than allowed by the permit, there
is a contravention of terms and conditions of the permit, yet however such
contravention does not authories a police officer to detain and seize the
vehicle in exercise of powers under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles
C Act and, therefore such detention and seizure must be held to be un-
authorised and illegal. The said conclusion ~d the compensation to the
tune of Rs. 10,000 having been awarded, the State of Maharashtra is in
appeal against the same.

D The association of the owners of the luxury buses in the districts of
Nanded and Parbhani, moved the High Court in a petition under Article
226 of the Constitution, alleging that the police authorities illegally seized
the vehicles of the members of the association in purported exercise of the
powers under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that
the buses were found to be carrying persons in excess of the number
E permitted by the authorities in the conditions of permit though Section 207
does not authorise for such detention. It was accordingly prayed to declare :
such seizure and detention of the vehicles to be illegal and to award
compensation. The State and the police authorities filed their returns
before the High Court, contending inter alia that under Section 207(1) of
F the Act, the appropriate authority is entitled to seize and detain the vehicle
if the vehicle in question is found to have violated any of the conditions of
the permit and since permit itself contemplates a specified number of
persons to be carried in the vehicle, the vehicle could be legally seized
when it is found to be carrying more than the numbers specified in the
G permit and, therefore, the seizure and the detention of the vehicle cannot
be said to be illegal or unauthorised. The High Court by the impugned
judgment analysed different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the
Rules framed thereunder and on consideration of the same, came to the
conclusion that it is not each and every violation of the conditions of the
permit which would authorise the seizure and detention of the vehicle
H under Section 207(1) of the Act. On the other hand it is only when the
...'
STATE v. SANDED-PARBHANIZLB.M.V., OPERATOR[PATIANAIK, J.J 361

conditions of permit relating to the area, the route or the purpose for which A
the vehicle is used, on being violated, the vehicle could be detained and,
therefore, detention or seizure of a vehicle ,op. thi; fl}legatip~, t,hat ,ye~~le
was found to be carrying passengers more than the number provided in the
permit is not authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Act
and consequently, such detention being unauthorised, the persons con-
cerned are entitled to compensation.
B

The short question that arises for c0nsideration is whether under
sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Act, the appropriate authority can be
said to have the power to detain a vehicle, the vehicle being found to be
used in contravention of the conditions of permit relating to the number C
of passengers which could be carried in the vehicle.

The learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently contended
that the permit itself having provided for the number of passengers to be
carried in the vehicle, when passengers excess in number than allowed for, D
is found to have been carried in the vehicle, it amounts to contravention
of conditions of permit and, therefore, contravention of the conditions of
permit would authorise the appropriate authority to detain the vehicle
under Section 207(1) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the
expression "conditions of permit" used in sub-section (1) of Section 207
should not be given any restrictive meaning, particularly when it is highly E
dangerous to carry passengers in excess of the numbers provided for in the
permit and if such contravention will not justify detention of the vehicle
under Section 207(1), then the power conferred thereunder would be
meaningless and, therefore, Court should interpret the provisions confer-
ring such power on the authorities even at the cost of doing violence to the F
language used in sub-section (1) of Section 207, which would be in the
larger public interest.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand
contended that the plain grammatical meaning to the word used in sub-
section (1) of section 207 if is ascribed, then it would be apparent that only G
the conditions of permit relating to the route on which or the area in which
or the purpose for which a vehicle is used can be considered for the
purpose of ascertaining whether there has been any contravention in
respect of the said field and only when it is found that there has been a
contravention in the said field, then the power to detain the vehicle under H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [~)lS.C.R.

A Section 207(1) can be exercised and not otherwise. That being the position,
.. the High Court was fully justified in its conclusion that contravention of"
the condition of permit relating to the number of passengt:rs to lie carried
in the vehicle will not authorise the detention of the vehicle under Section·.
207(1) of the Act. According to the learnt:d counsel for the respondent the
meaning of a statute has to be ascertained from the language used by the
B legislature and the Court need not ma!te a fresh legislation in the field
where the meaning is unambiguous and clear from the words used.

Section 207(1) of the Act is extracted herein below in extenso :

"207. Power to detain vehicle used without certificate of registration
c 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
D of Section 3 or Section 4 or Sc:etion 39 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,
seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this
purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider
E 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 contraven-
tion of Section 3 or Section 4 or without the permit required by
F 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
acknowledgment in respect thereof."

The aforesaid power of seizure has been conferred upon the ap-
propriate authority, which power is in fact a sovereign power of the State
G and has been delegated to the police officer in discharge of their duties of
law enforcement and in the enforcement of an orderly society. The power,
therefore, is required to be exercised with care and caution and the power
has to be exercised only when the pre-condition for exercise of power is
fully satisfied. It is a cardinal principle of rule of construction of statute
H that when the language of a statute is fairly and reasonably clear, then
S1ATE v. NANDED-PARBHANI ZLB.M.V., OPERATOR [PATIANAIK,J.[ 363

inconvenience or hardships are no considerations for refusing to giw effect A
to that meaning. It is not the contention of the learned counsel, appearing
.- for the State nor can itbe said that on giving a plain meaning to the words
used in Section 207(1) of the Act, there will be any ab&urdity or would
make the statute offending any provisions of the Constitution. Tindal, CJ,
in Sussex Peerage case (1844) 11 Cl & F 85, p. 143, applying the rule has
B
stated - "If the words of the statute are in thcmselws precise and unam-
biguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in
their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves do alone in such
cases best declare the intent of the lawgiver". In Emperor v. Benoarilal
Sarma, AIR (1945) PC 48, p. 53, Viscount Simonds held : 'this Board has
insisted that in construing unambiguous words, we are not concerned with c
the policy involved or with the results, injurious or otherwise, which may
follow from giving effect to the language used". In Kanai/al Sur v. Param-
nidhi Sadhu Khan, AIR (1957) SC 907, p. 910, Gajendragadkar, J. as he
then was, held : "If the words used are capable of one construction only
then it would not be open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical D
construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with
the alleged object and policy of the Act''. The intention of the legislature
is required to be gathered from the language used and, therefore, a
construction, which requires for its support with additional substitution of
words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be
avoided. Bearing in mind, the aforesaid principles of construction of statute
E
·~
and on examining the provisions of Section 21J7 of the Act, which has been
quoted t:arlier, we have no doubt in our mind that the police officer would
be authorised to detain a vehicle, if he has reason to believe that the
vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section
4 or Section 39 or without the permit required under sub-section (1) of F
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. In the case in hand, we are not concerned with the
contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or sub-section (1) of
Section 66 and we are only concerned with the question of contravention G
of the condition of permit. Reading the provisions as it is, the conclusion
is irresistible that the condition of permit relating to the route on which or
the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle could be used if
contravened, would only authorise the police officer to detain the vehicle
and not each and every condition of permit on being violated or con- H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l2C00) 1 S.C.R.
A travened, the police officer would be entitled to detain the vehicle. Accord-
ing to the learned counsel, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, the
expression "purpose for which the vehicle may be used' could be construed
to mean that when the vehicle is found to be carrying passengers more than
the number prescribed in the permit, th~ purpose of user is otherwise. We
B are unable to accede to this contention as in our opinion, the purpose
would only refer to a contingenc:y when a vehicle having a permit of stage
carriage is used as a contract carriage or vice versa or where a vehicle
having a permit for stage carriage or contract carriage is used as a goods
vehicle and vice versa. But carrying passengers more than the number
specified in the p1.::rmit will not be a violation of the purpose for which the
C permit is granted. If the legislature n:ally wanted to confer power of
detention on the police officer for violation of any condition of the permit, .
then there would not have been the necessity for adding the expression
"relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for
which the vehicle may be used". The user of the aforesaid expression
D cannot be ignored nor can it be said to be a tautology. We have also seen
the Form of permit (Form P.Co. T.), meant in respect of a tourist vehicle,
which is issued under Rule 72(1)(ix) and Rule 74(6) of the Maharashtra
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. On seeing the different columns, we are
unable to accede to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for
E the State of Maharashtra, that carrying passengers beyond the number .
mentioned in Column 5, indicating the seating capacity, would be a viola-
tion of the conditions of permit relating to either the route or the area or
the purpose for which the permit is granted. In this view of the matter, we
..
see no infirmity with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the
impugned judgment and the dett:ntion of the vehicles has rightly been held
F to be unauthorised and consequently, the compensation awarded cannot
be said to be without jurisdiction. This appeal, therefore, fails and is
dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.