Case Note & Summary
The respondent, a tourist bus operator with 265 buses, filed writ petitions seeking a direction that his vehicles not be seized except by following the procedure under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions on 19.12.2014 with directions regarding safe custody, release on indemnity bond, inventory preparation, and prohibition on giving custody to parallel operators. Aggrieved by these directions, the State of Karnataka and the Transport Commissioner filed writ appeals contending that seizures were always carried out in compliance with Rule 202-B and that no such directions were necessary. The appellants argued that Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) being government corporations were appropriate parallel operators for custody. The court examined Rule 202-B which mandates temporary safe custody at the nearest police station or any appropriate place. It held that the directions issued by the Single Judge were merely reiteration of Rule 202-B and were in conformity with Supreme Court decisions in Krishna Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Transport Commissioner v. S. Sardar Ali. It further held that an appropriate place must belong to the Government and not to a private body or even a public corporation that is a business competitor. Therefore, the direction not to give custody to parallel operators was justified. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles – Seizure and Detention – Rule 202-B of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Directions issued by Single Judge for safe custody and release of seized vehicles were in conformity with the Rule and Supreme Court precedents; no interference warranted – Held that the directions were nothing but reiteration of the Rule and clarifications consistent with Krishna Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Transport Commissioner v. S. Sardar Ali (Paras 4-9). B) Motor Vehicles – Custody of Seized Vehicles – Rule 202-B(i) – Prohibition on custody with parallel operators – Seized vehicle to be kept in temporary safe custody at nearest police station or appropriate place belonging to Government, not with a private body or parallel operator, including government corporations like BMTC and KSRTC, as they are business competitors – Held that direction that custody should not be given to parallel operators is justified (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the directions issued by the learned Single Judge regarding seizure and custody of vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules were contrary to law and required interference
Final Decision
Appeals are dismissed. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge are upheld as being in conformity with Rule 202-B and Supreme Court decisions.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Directions on seizure and custody of vehicles were reiteration of Rule 202-B of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules
- 1989
- and in conformity with Supreme Court precedents
- custody of seized vehicle shall be in a government place and not with parallel operators
