ORDER
R. Gururajan, J.
1.The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following prayers:
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other direction to quash the Notification No. HID 44 TMA Annerure E-1 in SLI Items 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31 and S. No. III Items 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 28 and 30 only so far relating to items in the Notification vide Annexure-‘B’.
(ii) ISSUE any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioners state that the Notification dated 3.7.2000 issued by the first respondent is unsustainable in law. According to the petition averments, the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the offences, penalties and procedures. Section 177 is a general provision governing levy of fine. According to the petitioners, Annexure ‘A’ runs counter to Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. Heard the Counsel on either sides and perused the material placed on record.
4. Petitioners’ Counsel reiterates the facts and grounds raised in these petitions. He refers to me the judgment of the Supreme Court .
5. Per contra, the Government Advocate supports the endorsement.
6. Annexure-‘A’ is a Notification issued by the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in supersession of the Notification dated 20.10.1995 published in the Government Gazette, dated 30.10.1995. The said Notification provides for various offences under the Act/Rules. In these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the Notification insofar as SI. Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31.
Section 177 of the Act provides for general provision for punishment of offences. The said section reads as under:
177. General provision for punishment of offences. – Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or any Rule, Regulation or Notification made thereunder shall, if no penalty is provided for the offence be punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees.
The said section no doubt provides for Notification providing fine if no penalty is provided for offences. It further provides for a fine of Rs. 100/- and for subsequent offences upto Rs. 300/-. Section 200 provides for composition of certain offences. What is clear to me by a combined reading of Sections 177 and 200, is that the delegated authority cannot impose a fine much more than one prescribed under the Act. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court . The Supreme Court in identical circumstances in para 4 has ruled as under:
4. The contention raised before the High Court and repeated before us by Mr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the discretion given in Section 200(1) of the Act is unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. Until an accused is convicted under Section 194, the right to levy penalty thereunder would not arise. When discretion is given to the Court for compounding of the offence for the amount mentioned under Section 200, it cannot be stratified by specified amount. It would, therefore, be clear that the exercise of power to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We find no force in the contention. For violation of Sections 113 to 115, Section 194 accords penal sanction and on conviction for violation thereof, the section sanctions punishment with fine as has been enumerated hereinbefore. Section would give guidance to the State Government as a delegate under the statute to specify the amount for compounding the offences enumerated under Sub-section (1) of Section 200. It is not mandatory that the authorised officer would always compound the offence. It is conditional under the willingness of the accused to have the offences compounded. It may also be done before the institution of the prosecution case. In the event of the petitioner’s willing to have the offence compounded, the authorised officer gets jurisdiction and authority to compound the offence and call upon the accused to pay the same. On compliance thereof, the proceedings, if already instituted, would be closed or no further proceedings shall be initiated. It is a matter of volition or willingness on the part of the accused either to accept compounding of the offence or to face the prosecution in the appropriate Court. As regards canalisation and prescription of the amount of fine for the offences committed, Section 194, the penal and charging section prescribes the maximum outer limit within which the compounding fee would be prescribed. The discretion exercised by the delegated legislation, i.e., the executive is controlled by the specification in the Act. It is not necessary that Section 200 itself should contain the details in that behalf. So long as the compounding fee does not exceed the fine prescribed by penal section, the same cannot be declared to be either exorbitant or irrational or bereft of guidance.
7. In the case on hand, it is seen in the Notification that the Government has fixed Rs. 200/- or Rs. 300/- which is much more than what is prescribed under Section 177. Therefore, in my view, the petitioners are right in contending that Annexure-‘B’ is a case of excess delegation not vested in law. Therefore, Annexure-‘B’, insofar as imposing a sum of Rs. 300/- so far as Item Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 are concerned, is set aside. Government is directed to issue a fresh Notification immediately to maintain discipline in the Industry by providing the amount in terms of Section 177 of the Act.
8. I also deem it proper to make certain observations with regard to maintaining discipline in Transport Sector. It is a common knowledge that several offences are being committed day-in and day-out in Bangalore or elsewhere in the State of Karnataka. Certain amount of discipline is absolutely necessary not only to maintain discipline in Transport Sector, but also to save the life of innocent public. Any misbehaviour of any driver with the public also requires to be arrested in a city like Bangalore. There are several alleged indisciplined acts by drivers in addition to harassment to the passengers. With the present provisions of law, it may not be possible to arrest these indiscipline behaviour for a disciplined transport life in this city. In the circumstances, I deem it proper to observe and suggest to the Government that necessary amendment be carried out to the Motor Vehicles Act providing for stringent punishment for those who violate traffic laws in the larger interest of public safety. I am sure that a Welfare Government would take note of the suggestions immediately in this regard to maintain welfare society. The present law is not enough to curb this indisciplined tragedies. Though I have quashed the Notification, liberty is reserved to the Government to issue a fresh Notification providing for a compounding fine in accordance with the provisions of law till appropriate amendment is made to the Act. I further order that this order is to be made applicable from today and no past cases are to be re-opened on account of this order.
Petitions are allowed with the above directions.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Office is to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Transport Department and the Secretary, Law Department, for informations.