IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 9.6.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
WRIT PETITION No.19106 of 2004
K.P.Natarajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary
to Government,
Home (Transport-VII) Department
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009
2. The State of Transport Authority
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005
3. The Regional Transport Officer
Dharmapuri
4. The Motor Vehicles Inspector
Grade-I, Regional Transport Office
Dharmapuri
5. The Motor Vehicles Inspector,
Multipurpose Check Post, Zuzuvadi
Hosur
6. The Motor Vehicles Inspector
Grade-II, Regional Transport Office
Dharmapuri .. Respondents
This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 to 6 from levying spot fine or collecting compounding fee for alleged violations of conditions of permit such as carrying unaccompanied luggage etc. purporting to act under the powers conferred by G.O.Ms.No.1243 dated 14.12.2001, Home (Transport -VII) Department published by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
For petitioner : Mr.R.Natesan
For respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner in the above writ petition is an operator of contract carriages covered by All India permits issued by the State Transport Authority, State of Karnataka. Since the permits issued in favour of the petitioner cover the States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry, the petitioner has been paying the Motor Vehicle Taxes to the Primary State of Karnataka as well as to the other States covered by the permit. The Government of Tamil Nadu had issued a Notification in Notification No.II (2)/HO/109/2000, dated 11.1.2000, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 2.2.2000. According to the said notification, the officials of the Transport Department, not below the rank of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non- Technical) in the Check Posts of the Transport Department were empowered to levy fine, on the spot, against the vehicles coming from other States, for certain offences notified therein. However, the Transport Commissioner had suggested that such powers should also be vested with the officials of the Transport Department in the hinterland to check tax evasion, unauthorised entries and other cognisable offences. The Government of Tamil Nadu had accepted the said suggestion of the Transport Commissioner and it had published G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, directing that all the Officers of the Transport Department not below the rank of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Grade II, shall exercise the powers of compounding of offences in the places other than the Check Post 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 the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 200 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Though the original Gazette Notification referred to the power to levy spot fine against the vehicles coming from other States for certain offences notified therein, G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, issued under Section 200 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, referred only to compounding of offences against vehicles from other States. It specifically provides that offences punishable under the provisions specified therein may, either before or after the Institution of prosecution, be compounded by such officers or such authorities as the Government may specify. In such cases, no further proceedings shall be taken against the person charged. The offences and violations covered by Section 200 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, relates to cognisable offences concerned with the safety of the vehicles and they did not cover alleged violations of the conditions contained in the permits.
3. The said Section specifically provides for compounding of offences by the person charged and it does not provide for levying of spot fine. The Officers, who are subordinates to the respondents in the above writ petition, are stopping the vehicles belonging to the petitioner alleging vague and baseless violations of the conditions contained in the permits. Further, they are collecting spot fines ranging from Rs.100/- to Rs.500/-. The Checking Officers can only issue check reports and forward them to the Primary Authority for initiating action for suspension or cancellation of permits for the alleged violations of conditions of permits. The necessary action can be initiated against the permit holders after giving them an opportunity to submit their explanation and by following the procedures prescribed by law. The respondents and their subordinates are 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 always referred to as spot fine referring to G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, as though it is the source of their power. G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, 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 fines under threat by such Officers that the vehicles would be impounded.
4. The petitioner had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in P.RATNAKAR RAO Vs. GOVT OF A.P. (AIR 1996 S.C. 2523) wherein it was held that the compounding of offences is conditional upon the willingness of the accused to have the offences compounded. While the offences contemplated under Section 200 would mostly refer to the driver or the person incharge of the vehicle, the offences charged by the respondents and their subordinates relate to permit the conditions, which would affect the Permit holder. The sustained harassment by the respondents and their subordinates is causing irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner, the drivers and the persons incharge of the vehicles. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition.
5. A common counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.30, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 11.1.2000, delegating the powers to Police Officials for compounding of offences in the Cities of Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai and Thiruchirappalli and the Transport Officials in the check posts, under Section 200 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The amounts chargeable as compounding fee were also revised and notified. The nature of offence and the revised amount of compounding fee were also notified in the said Government Order. It has also been specified in the said order that the Officials of the Transport Department, not below the rank of a Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non-Technical) in the check posts of the Transport Department are empowered, in respect of the vehicles coming from the other states, to collect compounding fees for the offences notified in G.O.Ms.No.30, Home Department, dated 11.1.2000 and also to enhance the amount of compounding fee/spot fine on the vehicles entering into the States of Tamil Nadu from other States.
6. It has been further stated that in order to curtail tax evasion and misuse of permits of the vehicles, the Government had amended the delegation of powers in G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, based on the suggestion made by the Transport Commissioner. As per such Special Government Order, all the officers of the Transport Department, not below the rank of motor vehicle Inspectors, (Grade II), have been empowered to collect spot fines from the Transport vehicles of other States, even in places other than the check posts.
7. Section 200 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for the levy of compounding fee in respect of offences punishable under Sections 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, even though the offences relating to the said Sections may seem to relate to Permit Holders. In fact, the drivers or the persons incharge of the vehicles are responsible for the said offences. Since the drivers and the persons incharge of the vehicles are mostly based in the State of Karnataka, it is difficult to summon them to enquire and to prosecute them, if found necessary. Therefore, a Notification under Section 200 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, had been issued and the compounding fees mentioned in the notification are being collected by the officials of the Transport Department.
8. The offences listed under Section 200 do not come under the category of cognisable offences. The averments made by the petitioner that the vehicles are being charged for vague and baseless violations of conditions of permit and spot fined based on such charges are manifestly incorrect and false. The vehicles belonging to the petitioner are plying in the State of Tamil Nadu by virtue of the permit issued by the State Transport Authority of the State of Karnataka, under Section 88(9) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Inspecting Officers of the State of Tamil Nadu are charging the vehicles of the petitioner when the offences are found to have been committed under the various Sections of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Only the offences committed relating to the drivers or the persons incharge of the vehicles which are compounded, under Section 200 of the Act, are recorded. Under Section 207 of the Act, the State Government has the authority and power to seize the vehicles contravening any of the conditions contained in the permits. However, since such implementation of the provision may cause hindrance to the use of the vehicles by their owners, the Government had decided to provide the facility of paying spot fine. Therefore, it cannot be said that the levying of spot fines would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the owners of the vehicles. Section 177 of the Act relates to a general provision with regard to the punishment of offences where no specific provisions have been made. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, by the respondents and their subordinates result in levying of spot fines and collection of compounding fees causing hardship and irreparable loss to the vehicle owners who are operating the vehicles in the State of Tamil Nadu. The powers said to be vested in the respondents and their subordinates are very often misused for illegally collecting various amounts from the drivers and the persons incharge of the vehicles. Even non compoundable offences or violations of permits, the petitioner is spot fined by the respondents or their subordinates, both at the check posts and other interior places of the State of Tamil Nadu. If such collections or spot fines are made and they are marked against the permit holders, it would result in the denial of renewal of permits to such permit holders. The drivers or the persons incharge of the vehicles pay the spot fines by compounding the alleged offences, even though in reality such offences may not be committed by them as they are under compulsion to do so in order to avoid impounding of the vehicles, both at the check posts and in the interior places of the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, and its implementation result in undue hardship and loss to the petitioner.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, has been issued only to alleviate the hardship that may be faced by the owners of the vehicles. If the vehicles are charged for committing various offences, it would also prevent impounding of the vehicles for committing such offences. The compounding of offences and levying of spot fines have been provided for only in the interest of the petitioner and therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to allege that the powers vested in the respondents and their subordinates are being misused. If it is found that a particular officer or his subordinates have misused their authority, it is for the concerned vehicle owner to make a specific complaint against such misuse of power. If such a complaint is made, the appropriate authority would initiate necessary action against such erring officer. Therefore, a general allegation by the petitioner that the powers vested in the respondents and their subordinates, who are responsible officers of the Government, by G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, are likely to be misused cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that necessary instructions would be issued to the Officers concerned to implement the Government order in question in its true spirit in which it is intended to apply. Any misuse of powers vested in the Officers by the said Government Order would be discouraged by the authorities concerned and necessary action would be taken against such officers, if such misuse is brought to the notice of the authorities.
12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1243, Home (Transport VII) Department, dated 14.12.2001, has been issued only with the intention of alleviating the hardship that the drivers and the persons incharge of their vehicles may face in the course of the implementation of the various sections of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Compounding of offence and levying of spot fines had been introduced in order to avoid more serious consequences, that may arise as a result of the offences committed by the drivers and the persons incharge of the vehicles. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that the powers vested in the respondents and their subordinates could be misused cannot be countenanced. If a power vested in an authority or officer is misused, it is for the aggrieved party to bring it to the knowledge of the higher authorities for initiating necessary action against such misuse of powers and for initiating remedial action. It cannot be a general charge or a complaint that the powers vested in the concerned officials are being misused. Based on such charge or complaint, it cannot be held that the powers or the source of such powers is ultra vires and unsustainable in the eye of law. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.23002 of 2004 is also dismissed. No costs.
To:
1. The Secretary
to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu
Home (Transport-VII) Department
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009
2. The State of Transport Authority
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005
3. The Regional Transport Officer
Dharmapuri
4. The Motor Vehicles Inspector
Grade-I, Regional Transport Office
Dharmapuri
5. The Motor Vehicles Inspector,
Multipurpose Check Post, Zuzuvadi, Hosur
6. The Motor Vehicles Inspector
Grade-II, Regional Transport Office,
Dharmapuri
