M/s.K.P.N.Travels India LimitedNo.14, Karunakarpillai st.,KosapalayamPondicherry v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 9.6.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWRIT PETITION No.26979 of 2004M/s.K.P.N.Travels India LimitedNo.14, Karunakarpillai st.,KosapalayamPondicherry... PetitionerVs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Home (Transport-VII) Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 0092. The State Transport Authority Chepauk, Chennai-600 0053. The Regional Transport Officer Villupuram4. The Regional Transport Officer Salem5. The Regional Transport Officer Trichy6. The Regional Transport Officer Coimbatore .. RespondentsThis Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamusforbearing the respondents 2 to 6 from levying spot fine orcollecting compounding fee for alleged violations of conditions ofpermit such as carrying unaccompanied luggage etc. purporting to actunder the powers conferred by G.O.Ms.No.1243 dated 14.12.2001, Home(Transport -VII) Department published by the Government of TamilNadu. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner : Mr.R.NatesanFor respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan Additional Government PleaderO R D E RThe petitioner in the above writ petition is an operator ofcontract carriages covered by All India permits issued by the StateTransport Authorities, States of Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu andKarnataka. Since the permits issued in favour of the petitioner coverthe States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry, thepetitioner has been paying the Motor Vehicle Taxes to the PrimaryState of Karnataka as well as to the other States covered by thepermit. The Government of Tamil Nadu had issued a Notification inNotification No.II (2)/HO/109/2000, dated 11.1.2000, published in theTamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 2.2.2000. According to the saidnotification, the officials of the Transport Department, not belowthe rank of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non- Technical) in theCheck Posts of the Transport Department were empoweredto levy fine, on the spot, against the vehicles coming fromother States, for certain offences notified therein. However, theTransport Commissioner had suggested that such powers should also bevested with the officials of the Transport Department in thehinterland to check tax evasion, unauthorised entries and othercognisable offences. The Government of Tamil Nadu had accepted thesaid suggestion of the Transport Commissioner and it had publishedG.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001,directing that all the Officers of the Transport Department not belowthe rank of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Grade II, shall exercise thepowers of compounding of offences in the places other than the CheckPost in respect of vehicles from other States.2. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII)Department, dated 14.12.2001, has been issued in exercise of thepowers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 200 of The MotorVehicles Act, 1988. Though the original Gazette Notification referredto the power to levy spot fine against the vehicles coming from otherStates for certain offences notified therein, G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home(Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, issued under Section200 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, referred only to compounding ofoffences against vehicles from other States. It specifically providesthat offences punishable under the provisions specified therein may,either before or after the Institution of prosecution, be compoundedby such officers or such authorities as the Government may specify.In such cases, no further proceedings shall be taken against theperson charged. The offences and violations covered by Section 200 ofThe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, relates to cognisable offencesconcerned with the safety of the vehicles and they did not cover https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ alleged violations of the conditions contained in the permits. 3. The said Section specifically provides for compounding ofoffences by the person charged and it does not provide for levying ofspot fine. The Officers, who are subordinates to the respondents inthe above writ petition, are stopping the vehicles belonging to thepetitioner alleging vague and baseless violations of the conditionscontained in the permits. Further, they are collecting spot finesranging from Rs.100/- to Rs.500/-. The Checking Officers can onlyissue check reports and forward them to the Primary Authority forinitiating action for suspension or cancellation of permits for thealleged violations of conditions of permits. The necessary action canbe initiated against the permit holders after giving them anopportunity to submit their explanation and by following theprocedures prescribed by law. The respondents and their subordinatesare issuing the Check Reports on a daily basis alleging violations,like, carrying unaccompanied luggage, non-maintenance of trip sheets,collecting individual fares etc. The amounts collected are alwaysreferred to as spot fine referring to G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (TransportVII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, as though it is the source oftheir power. G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated14.12.2001, as well as Section 200 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,refer to compounding of offences and they do not refer to spot fines.Since the respondents and their subordinates are collecting the fine,the drivers of the vehicles have no option except to pay the finesunder threat by such Officers that the vehicles would be impounded. 4. The petitioner had relied on the decision of the SupremeCourt reported in P.RATNAKAR RAO Vs. GOVT OF A.P. (AIR 1996 S.C.2523) wherein it was held that the compounding of offences isconditional upon the willingness of the accused to have the offencescompounded. While the offences contemplated under Section 200 wouldmostly refer to the driver or the person incharge of the vehicle, theoffences charged by the respondents and their subordinates relate topermit the conditions, which would affect the Permit holder. Thesustained harassment by the respondents and their subordinates iscausing irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner, the driversand the persons incharge of the vehicles. In such circumstances, thepetitioner has preferred the above writ petition. 5. A common counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of therespondents wherein it has been stated that the Government had issuedG.O.Ms.No.30, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 11.1.2000,delegating the powers to Police Officials for compounding of offencesin the Cities of Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai and Thiruchirappalliand the Transport Officials in the check posts, under Section 200 ofThe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The amounts chargeable as compoundingfee were also revised and notified. The nature of offence and therevised amount of compounding fee were also notified in the saidGovernment Order. It has also been specified in the said order that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Officials of the Transport Department, not below the rank of aMotor Vehicle Inspector (Non-Technical) in the check posts of theTransport Department are empowered, in respect of the vehicles comingfrom the other states, to collect compounding fees for the offencesnotified in G.O.Ms.No.30, Home Department, dated 11.1.2000 and alsoto enhance the amount of compounding fee/spot fine on the vehiclesentering into the States of Tamil Nadu from other States. 6. It has been further stated that in order to curtail taxevasion and misuse of permits of the vehicles, the Government hadamended the delegation of powers in G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (TransportVII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, based on the suggestion made bythe Transport Commissioner. As per such Special Government Order, allthe officers of the Transport Department, not below the rank of motorvehicle Inspectors, (Grade II), have been empowered to collect spotfines from the Transport vehicles of other States, even in placesother than the check posts.7. Section 200 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for thelevy of compounding fee in respect of offences punishable underSections 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182(1), (182(2), 183(1), 183(2),184, 186, 189, 190(2), 192, 194, 196 and 198 of the said Act, eventhough the offences relating to the said Sections may seem to relateto Permit Holders. In fact, the drivers or the persons incharge ofthe vehicles are responsible for the said offences. Since the driversand the persons incharge of the vehicles are mostly based in theState of Karnataka, it is difficult to summon them to enquire and toprosecute them, if found necessary. Therefore, a Notification underSection 200 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, had been issued and thecompounding fees mentioned in the notification are being collected bythe officials of the Transport Department. 8. The offences listed under Section 200 do not come under thecategory of cognisable offences. The averments made by the petitionerthat the vehicles are being charged for vague and baseless violationsof conditions of permit and spot fined based on such charges aremanifestly incorrect and false. The vehicles belonging to thepetitioner are plying in the State of Tamil Nadu by virtue of thepermit issued by the State Transport Authority of the State ofKarnataka, under Section 88(9) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. TheInspecting Officers of the State of Tamil Nadu are charging thevehicles of the petitioner when the offences are found to have beencommitted under the various Sections of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.Only the offences committed relating to the drivers or the personsincharge of the vehicles which are compounded, under Section 200 ofthe Act, are recorded. Under Section 207 of the Act, the StateGovernment has the authority and power to seize the vehiclescontravening any of the conditions contained in the permits. However,since such implementation of the provision may cause hindrance to theuse of the vehicles by their owners, the Government had decided to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ provide the facility of paying spot fine. Therefore, it cannot besaid that the levying of spot fines would cause irreparable loss andhardship to the owners of the vehicles. Section 177 of the Actrelates to a general provision with regard to the punishment ofoffences where no specific provisions have been made. Therefore, thewrit petition filed by the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyeof law. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hadsubmitted that the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (TransportVII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, by the respondents and theirsubordinates result in levying of spot fines and collection ofcompounding fees causing hardship and irreparable loss to the vehicleowners who are operating the vehicles in the State of Tamil Nadu. Thepowers said to be vested in the respondents and their subordinatesare very often misused for illegally collecting various amounts fromthe drivers and the persons incharge of the vehicles. Even noncompoundable offences or violations of permits, the petitioner isspot fined by the respondents or their subordinates, both at thecheck posts and other interior places of the State of Tamil Nadu. Ifsuch collections or spot fines are made and they are marked againstthe permit holders, it would result in the denial of renewal ofpermits to such permit holders. The drivers or the persons inchargeof the vehicles pay the spot fines by compounding the allegedoffences, even though in reality such offences may not be committedby them as they are under compulsion to do so in order to avoidimpounding of the vehicles, both at the check posts and in theinterior places of the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, the GovernmentOrder in G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated14.12.2001, and its implementation result in undue hardship and lossto the petitioner. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for therespondents had submitted that the Government Order inG.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001,has been issued only to alleviate the hardship that may be faced bythe owners of the vehicles. If the vehicles are charged forcommitting various offences, it would also prevent impounding of thevehicles for committing such offences. The compounding of offencesand levying of spot fines have been provided for only in the interestof the petitioner and therefore, it is incorrect on the part of thepetitioner to allege that the powers vested in the respondents andtheir subordinates are being misused. If it is found that aparticular officer or his subordinates have misused their authority,it is for the concerned vehicle owner to make a specific complaintagainst such misuse of power. If such a complaint is made, theappropriate authority would initiate necessary action against sucherring officer. Therefore, a general allegation by the petitionerthat the powers vested in the respondents and their subordinates, whoare responsible officers of the Government, by G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, are likely to bemisused cannot be sustained in the eye of law.11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents hadsubmitted that necessary instructions would be issued to the Officersconcerned to implement the Government order in question in its truespirit in which it is intended to apply. Any misuse of powers vestedin the Officers by the said Government Order would be discouraged bythe authorities concerned and necessary action would be taken againstsuch officers, if such misuse is brought to the notice of theauthorities.12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the consideredview that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason togrant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. The GovernmentOrder in G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated14.12.2001, has been issued only with the intention of alleviatingthe hardship that the drivers and the persons incharge of theirvehicles may face in the course of the implementation of the varioussections of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Compounding of offence andlevying of spot fines had been introduced in order to avoid moreserious consequences, that may arise as a result of the offencescommitted by the drivers and the persons incharge of the vehicles.The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that the powersvested in the respondents and their subordinates could be misusedcannot be countenanced. If a power vested in an authority or officeris misused, it is for the aggrieved party to bring it to theknowledge of the higher authorities for initiating necessary actionagainst such misuse of powers and for initiating remedial action. Itcannot be a general charge or a complaint that the powers vested inthe concerned officials are being misused. Based on such charge orcomplaint, it cannot be held that the powers or the source of suchpowers is ultra vires and unsustainable in the eye of law. In suchview of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently,connected W.P.M.P.No.32866 of 2004 is also dismissed. No costs.Sd/-Assistant Registrar/true copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu Home (Transport-VII) Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The State Transport Authority Chepauk, Chennai-600 0053. The Regional Transport Officer Villupuram4. The Regional Transport Officer Salem5. The Regional Transport Officer Trichy6. The Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore.WRIT PETITION No.26979 of 2004CK(CO)JJM(30.06.08)