https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189142 The power under section 133-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 had to be exercised consistently with the Act's scheme and Article 19(1)(g), because stopping, inspection, search, seizure and detention are serious restraints on motor vehicle operators. Fair, unbiased and independent enforcement was therefore required. An officer who was also the General Manager of a competing transport undertaking was placed in a conflict between duty and interest and could not be expected to act with the necessary impartiality. The rule of necessity did not apply because other officers were available. The notification appointing such an as an enforcing officer was invalid and liable to be quashed. en-us Thu, 25 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:40:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189142 The power under section 133-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 had to be exercised consistently with the Act's scheme and Article 19(1)(g), because stopping, inspection, search, seizure and detention are serious restraints on motor vehicle operators. Fair, unbiased and independent enforcement was therefore required. An officer who was also the General Manager of a competing transport undertaking was placed in a conflict between duty and interest and could not be expected to act with the necessary impartiality. The rule of necessity did not apply because other officers were available. The notification appointing such an as an enforcing officer was invalid and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189142