Kerala High Court
P.K.Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 3 October, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 439
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/11TH ASWINA, 1941
WP(C).No.13732 OF 2019(N)
PETITIONERS:
1 P.K.SANTHOSH,
S/O. KRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. GREEN LINE
EXPRESS, NO.3, T.M. COMPLEX, CHANDRANAGAR BYE
PASS, CHANDRANAGAR P.O, PALAKKAD-678007.
2 JAYA SANTHOSH,
W/O. SANTHOSH, M/S. GREEN LINE EXPRESS, NO.3,
P.M. COMPLEX, CHANDRANAGAR BYE PASS,
CHANDRANAGAR P.O, PALAKKAD-678007.
3 AMITHA K,
MANAGER, M/S. GREEN LINE EXPRESS, NO.3,
P.M. COMPLEX, CHANDRANGAR BYE PASS,
CHANDRANAGAR P.O, PALAKKAD-678007.
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
SMT.SMITHA
SMT.S.UMA DEVI
SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001,
W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 2
4 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
AYYANTHOLE, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR-680004.
5 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.
6 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688001,
7 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691013.
8 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
AVANAVANCHERRY, NH ROAD, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 101
9 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ADV. P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPL.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.09.2019, THE COURT ON 03.10.2019, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 3
"CR"
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who are contract carriage operators, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction retraining respondents 2 to 9 or the officers under them from compulsorily collecting penalty amounts under the guise of compounding of the offences alleged in the check reports. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 9 or the officers under them to permit them to contest the charges raised in various check reports likely to be issued at the time of interception of vehicles alleging violation of any provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the MV Act') and the Rules made thereunder.
2. The 1st petitioner is the registered owner of contract carriages bearing Nos.KL-42/L-3223, KL42/L-5337, KL-09/AR- 789, KL-9/AR-879, KL-09/AF-3499, KL-09/AF-3499, KL-11/D- 3493, KL-09/V-1999, KL-09/AF-4105 and KL-09/AF-3967; the 2nd petitioner is the registered owner of a contract carriage W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 4 bearing registration No.KL-16/M-6045; and the 3 rd petitioner is the registered owner of a contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-16/M-5927. The said vehicles are covered by Exts.P1 to P11 contract carriage permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad authorising the use of such vehicles in all fit roads in Kerala State, except those prohibited by law in force. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners are operating their contract carriages on regular engagement from Palakkad to Thiruvananthapuram, Kozhikode to Thiruvananthapuram and back and also to various other destinations in the State of Kerala, as per the booking schedule of the respective contract carriages. They are aggrieved by the frequent interference of the operation of their vehicles during night time by the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department, following an incident that happened on 21.04.2019 at Harippad and Ernakulam, wherein the passengers of the vehicle had to wait for more than two hours and thereafter, when the replacement vehicle reached the spot at Karuvatta, there was a break down. On the allegation that the crew members of the bus were attacked by three passengers and one staff member was hospitalised, Crime No.60/2019 of Harippad Police Station W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 5 was registered against the passengers. In connection with some incident that happened in the very same vehicle at about 4.30 am at Vytila, Crime No.698 of 2019 of Maradu Police Station was registered, in which seven persons were arrested, and they are in judicial custody from 21.04.2019.
3. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it is averred that six contract carriages of the petitioners were subjected to checking from 25.04.2019 to 30.04.2019 on the allegation of conducting regular service between Palakkad and Thiruvananthapuram. Check report dated 28.04.2019 issued to contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-09/AR-789 is alleging contravention of Section 66 of the MV Act, punishable under Section 192A. Similar check reports have been issued on 27.04.2019 in respect of contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-16/M-5927 and on 28.04.2019 to contract carriages bearing registration No.KL-16/M-6045. On 25.04.2019, contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-09/AR-879 was issued with a check report without mentioning the alleged offence. On 28.04.2019, contract carriage bearing No.KL- 16/M5927 was issued with check reports without mentioning the alleged offence. On 24.04.2019, contract carriage bearing W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 6 registration No.KL-09/V-1999 was issued with check reports alleging violation of Section 66. In the writ petition, it is alleged that, from 01.04.2019 onwards the vehicles are being detained at various points between Palakkad and Thiruvananthapuram by the officials of respondents 2 to 9 alleging various irregularities as if the petitioners are operating the vehicles as 'stage carriages'.
4. According to the petitioners they are operating their services strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 74 of the MV Act. The operation of contract carriage services on a regular basis on various routes by permitting transportation of passengers from one destination to another destination on payment of tax stipulated by the Government is legally permissible. No prejudice will be caused to any person by regular operation of contract carriage services. On the other hand, by the increase of operation of contract carriages, the travelling public is benefited by convenient journey and the Government is also benefited by increase in revenue. The operation of regular services benefits the fuel filling stations and also the wayside restaurants in the area of operation. There is no individual ticketing for passengers and there is no W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 7 collection of differential rate of fares from the passengers as all the passengers are permitted to travel on the respective vehicles on payment of uniform fare to the group leader who in turn will pay the contract amount to the petitioners and the operation of the services fall within the definition of 'contract carriage' as defined under sub-section (7) of Section 2 of the MV Act. The petitioner would point out that, in KSRTC v. State Transport Authority [1998 (2) KLT 677] this Court has made it clear that a contract carriage permit can be granted for a route as well.
5. On 14.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 9 and sought time to file counter affidavit. On 04.06.2019, the petitioners were directed to produce the check reports referred to in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2019, the petitioners have produced Exts.P12 to P42 check reports in respect of the vehicles in question.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. In view of the amendment made to the MV Act by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 further W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 8 arguments were heard on 25.09.2019.
7. The vehicles owned by the petitioners are covered by Exts.P1 to P11 contract carriage permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad authorising the use of such vehicles in all fit roads in Kerala State, except those prohibited by law in force. The said vehicles are issued with check reports by the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department in Kerala, alleging use of such vehicles in contravention of sub- section (1) of Section 66 of the MV Act, punishable under Section 192A of the said Act. As per the check reports, at the time of inspection, the vehicles were being operated as 'stage carriages', picking up passengers from different places, collecting individual fares.
8. Clause (7) of Section 2 of the MV Act defines 'contract carriage' to mean a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of such vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum; (a) W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 9 on a time basis, whether or not with reference to any route or distance; or (b) from one point to another, and in either case, without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey, and includes; (i) a maxi-cab; and (ii) a motor-cab notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for its passengers. Clause (35) of Section 2 defines 'public service vehicle' to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxi-cab, a motor-cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage.
8.1. Clause (40) of Section 2 of the MV Act defines 'stage carriage' to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey. Clause (43) of Section 2 defines 'tourist vehicle' to mean a contract carriage constructed or adapted and equipped and maintained in accordance with such specifications as may be prescribed in this behalf. Clause (47) of Section 2 defines 'transport vehicle' to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 10 vehicle.
8.2. Chapter IV of the MV Act deals with registration of motor vehicles. Section 39 of the MV Act deals with necessity for registration. As per Section 39, no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. As per the proviso to Section 39, nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Section 56 deals with certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. As per sub-section (1) of Section 56, subject to the provisions of Sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorised testing station W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 11 mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
8.3. Chapter V of the MV Act deals with control of transport vehicles. Section 66 of the Act deals with necessity for permits. As per sub-section (1) of Section 66, no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. As per the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 66, a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage. As per the second proviso, a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not. As per the third proviso, a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 12 conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him. As per the fourth proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 66, inserted by Section 29 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 [with effect from 01.09.2019], where a transport vehicle has been issued with any permit or permits, as well as a licence under this Act, such vehicle may be used either under the permit, or permits, so issued to it, or under such licence, at the discretion of the vehicle owner.
8.4. Section 68 of the MV Act deals with transport authorities. As per sub-section (1) of Section 68, the State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for the State a State Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in sub- section (3), and shall in like manner constitute Regional Transport Authorities to exercise and discharge throughout such areas (referred to as regions in Chapter V) as may be specified in the notification, in respect of each Regional Transport Authority; the powers and functions conferred by or under this Chapter on such Authorities. As per sub-section (3) W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 13 of Section 68, the State Transport Authority and every Regional Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under Section 67 [which deals with the power of the State Government to control road transport] and the State Transport Authority shall, subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, exercise and discharge throughout the State the powers and functions enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (3).
8.5. As per sub-section (4) of Section 68 of the MV Act, for the purpose of exercising and discharging the powers and functions specified in sub-section (3), a State Transport Authority, may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, issue directions to any Regional Transport Authority, and the Regional Transport Authority shall, in the discharge of its functions under this Act, give effect to and be guided by such directions. As per sub-section (5) of Section 68, the State Transport Authority and any Regional Transport Authority, if authorised in this behalf by rules made under Section 96, may delegate such of its powers and functions to such authority or person subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by the said W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 14 rules.
8.6. Section 70 of the MV Act deals with application for stage carriage permit. Section 71 deals with procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering the application for stage carriage permit and Section 72 deals with grant of stage carriage permit with any one or more of the conditions enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxiv) of sub-section (2). As per the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 74 inserted by Section 33 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 [with effect from 01.09.2019] the Regional Transport Authority may in the interests of last-mile connectivity waive any such condition in respect of any such types of vehicles as may be specified by the Central Government.
8.7. Section 73 of the MV Act deals with application for contract carriage permit. As per Section 73, an application for a permit in respect of a contract carriage (referred to as a contract carriage permit in Chapter V) shall contain the particulars enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) thereof. Section 74 deals with grant of contract carriage permit. As per sub-section (1) of Section 74, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 15 it under Section 73, grant a contract carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit. As per the proviso to sub-section (1), no such permit shall be granted in respect of any area not specified in the application. As per sub-section (2) of Section 74, the Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a contract carriage permit, may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the conditions enumerated in clauses (i) to (xiii) thereof. As per the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 74, inserted by Section 33 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 [with effect from 01.09.2019], the Regional Transport Authority may in the interest of last-mile connectivity waive any such conditions in respect of any such types of vehicles as may be specified by the Central Government.
8.8. Section 84 of the MV Act deals with general conditions attaching to all permits. As per Section 84, the conditions enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) thereof shall be the conditions of every permit. As per clause (a), the vehicle to which the permit relates shall carry a valid certificate of fitness W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 16 issued under Section 56 and is shall at all times so maintained as to comply with the requirements of the MV Act and the rules made thereunder. As per clause (b), the vehicle to which the permit relates shall not be driven at a speed exceeding the speed permitted under the MV Act. As per clause (c), any prohibition or restriction imposed and any fares or freight fixed by notification made under Section 67 shall be observed in connection with the vehicle to which the permit relates.
8.9. Section 86 of the MV Act deals with cancellation and suspension of permits. As per sub-section (1) of Section 86, the Transport Authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit on the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1). Under clause (a), the Transport Authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit on the breach of any condition specified in Section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit, and under clause (b), if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit. Sub-section (7) of Section 86 deals with tourist permit granted under sub-section (9) of Section 88 of the MV W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 17 Act. Sub-section (7) of Section 86 provides that, in relation to a permit referred to in sub-section (9) of Section 88, the powers exercisable under sub-section (1) (other than the power to cancel a permit) by the Transport Authority which granted the permit, may be exercised by any Transport Authority and any authority or persons to whom power in this behalf has been delegated under sub-section (5) of Section 68, as if the said permit was a permit granted by any such authority or persons.
8.10. Section 88 of the MV Act deals with validation of permits for use outside the region in which it is granted. As per sub-section (1) of Section 88, except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. However, as per sub-section (9) of Section 88, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but subject to any rules W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 18 that may be made by the Central Government under sub- section (14), any State Transport Authority may, for the purpose of promoting tourism, grant permits in respect of tourist vehicles valid for the whole of India, or in such contiguous States not being less than three in number including the State in which the permit is issued as may be specified in such permit in accordance with the choice indicated in the application and the provisions of Sections 73, 74, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 62, clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 87 and Section 89 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such permits.
8.11. Clause (1A) of Section 2 of the MV Act inserted by Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 [with effect from 01.09.2019] defines 'aggregator' to mean a digital intermediary or market place for a passenger to connect with a driver for the purpose of transportation. As per Section 93 of the MV Act, after its substitution/insertion by Section 36 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, an agent or canvasser or aggregator has to obtain licence.
8.12. Section 95 of the MV Act deals with power of State Government to make rules as to stage carriages and contract W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 19 carriages. As per sub-section (1) of Section 95, a State Government may make rules to regulate, in respect of stage carriages and contract carriages and the conduct of passengers in such vehicles. As per sub-section (2), without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, such rules may deal with the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) thereof. Section 96 deals with power of State Government to make rules for the purposes of Chapter V [which deals with control of transport vehicles]. As per sub-section (1) of Section 96, a State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter V. As per sub-section (2), without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, rules under this section may be made with respect to all or any of the matters enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxxiii) thereof. Clauses (xxxiia) and (xxxiib), inserted by Section 38 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 [with effect from 01.09.2019] empowers the State Government to make rules with respect to framing of schemes under sub-section (3) of Section 67; and the promotion of effective competition, passenger convenience and safety, competitive fares and prevention of overcrowding, respectively. W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 20
8.13. Chapter XIII of the MV Act deals with offences, penalties and procedure. As per Section 177, which deals with general provision for punishment of offences, whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of 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. By Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, the words 'one hundred rupees' and 'three hundred rupees' in Section 177 of the MV Act, are substituted with the words 'five hundred rupees' and 'one thousand and five hundred rupees' respectively, with effect from 01.09.2019. As per Section 177A of the MV Act, inserted by Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, whoever contravenes the regulations made under Section 118, shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees, but may extend to one thousand rupees.
8.14. Section 178 of the MV Act deals with penalty for travelling without pass or ticket and for dereliction of duty on the part of conductor and refusal to ply contract carriage, etc. W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 21 Section 179 of the MV Act deals with disobedience of orders, obstruction and refusal of information. As sub-section (1) of Section 179, whoever wilfully disobeys any direction lawfully given by any person or authority empowered under this Act to give such direction, or obstructs any person or authority in the discharge of any functions which such person or authority is required or empowered under this Act to discharge, shall, if no other penalty is provided for the offence be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. As sub-section (2) of Section 179, whoever, being required by or under this Act to supply any information, wilfully withholds such information or gives information which he knows to be false or which he does not believe to be true, shall, if no other penalty is provided for the offence, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. By Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, the words 'five hundred rupees' in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 179 of the MV Act are substituted with the words 'two thousand rupees', with effect from 01.09.2019.
8.15. Section 183 of the MV Act deals with driving at W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 22 excessive speed, etc.; Section 184 deals with driving dangerously; Section 185 deals with driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence drugs; Section 186 deals with driving when mentally or physically unfit to drive; Section 187 deals with punishment for offences relating to accident; and Section 188 deals with punishment for abatement of certain offences. As per Section 188, whoever abets the commission of an offence under Section 184, Section 185 or Section 186 shall be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence. Section 189 of the MV Act deals with racing and trails of speed; and Section 190 deals with using vehicle in unsafe condition.
8.16. Section 192 of the MV Act deals with using vehicle without registration. As per sub-section (1) of Section 192, whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of Section 39 shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees for a second or subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 23 five thousand rupees or with both. As per the proviso to sub- section (1), the court may, for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment. As per Explanation to Section192 of the MV Act, inserted by Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, use of a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of Section 56 shall be deemed to be a contravention of the provisions of Section 39 and shall be punishable in the same manner as provided in sub-section (1).
8.17. Section 192A of the MV Act deals with using vehicle without permit. As per sub-section (1) of Section 192A, whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 24 but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 192A, the court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.
8.18. Sub-section (1) of Section 192A, as inserted/ substituted by Section 75 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 [with effect from 01.09.2019], provides that whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and a fine of ten thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than six months or with fine of ten thousand rupees or with both. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 192A, the Court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.
8.19. Section 193 of the MV Act, as substituted by Section 77 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, deals with punishment of agents, canvassers and aggregators W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 25 without proper authority. Section 194 deals with driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight. Section 194A, inserted by Section 79 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 [with effect from 01.09.2019] deals with carriage of excess passengers. As per Section 194A, whoever drives a transport vehicle or causes or allows a transport vehicle to be driven while carrying more passengers than is authorised in the registration certificate of such transport vehicle or the permit conditions applicable to such transport vehicle shall be punishable with a fine of two hundred rupees per excess passenger. As per the proviso to Section 194A, such transport vehicle shall not be allowed to move before the excess passengers are off-loaded and an alternative transport is arranged for such passengers. Section 194F deals with use of horns and silence zones. Section 195 deals with imposition of minimum fine under certain circumstances; Section 196 deals with driving uninsured vehicle; Section 197 deals with taking vehicle without authority; Section 198 deals with unauthorised interference with vehicle; and Section 199 deals with offences by Companies.
8.20. Section 200 of the MV Act deals with composition of W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 26 certain offences. As per sub-section (1) of Section 200, any offence whether committed before or after the commencement of this Act punishable under Section 177, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180, Section 181, Section 182, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 183, Section 184, Section 186, Section 189, sub-section (2) of Section 190, Section 191, Section 192, Section 194, Section 196 or Section 198 may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by such officers or authorities and for such amount as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. As per sub-section (2) of Section 200, where an offence has been compounded under sub-section (1), the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of such offence. Section 200 of the MV Act, as substituted by Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 [with effect from 01.09.2019] reads thus;
"200. Composition of certain offences.- (1) Any offence whether committed before or after the commencement of this Act punishable under Section 177, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180, Section 181, Section 182, Sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) or sub-W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 27
section (4) of Section 182A, Section 182B, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 183, Section 184 only to the extent of use of handheld communication devices, Section 186, Section 189, sub-section (2) of Section 190, Section 192, Section 192A, Section 194, Section 194A, Section 194B, Section 194C, Section 194D, Section 194E, Section 194F, Section 196, Section 198 may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by such officers or authorities and for such amount as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
Provided that the State Government may, in addition to such amount, require the offender to undertake a period of community service.
(2) Where an offence has been compounded under sub- section (1) the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of such offence.
Provided that notwithstanding compounding under this section, such offence shall be deemed to be a previous commission of the same offence for the purpose of determining whether a subsequent offence has been committed:
Provided further that compounding of an offence will not discharge the offender from proceedings under sub- section (4) of section 206 or the obligation to complete a driver refresher training course, or the obligation to complete community service, if applicable.
8.21. Section 201 of the MV Act deals with penalty for W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 28 causing obstruction to free flow of traffic. Section 202 deals with power to arrest without warrant. As per sub-section (1) of Section 202, a police officer in uniform may arrest without warrant any person who in his presence commits an offence punishable under Section 184 or Section 185 or Section 197.
As per sub-section (2), a police officer in uniform may arrest without warrant any person, who has committed an offence under this Act, if such person refuses to give his name and address.
8.22. Section 206 of the MV Act deals with power of police officer to impound document. As per sub-section (1) of Section 206, any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that any identification mark carried on a motor vehicle or any licence, permit, certificate of registration, certificate of insurance or other document produced to him by the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle is a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 seize the mark or document and call upon the driver or owner of the vehicle to account for his possession of or the presence in the vehicle of such mark or document. As per sub-section W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 29 (2) of Section 206, any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle who is charged with any offence under this Act may abscond or otherwise avoid the service of a summons, seize any licence held by such driver and forward it to the court taking cognizance of the offence and the said court shall on the first appearance of such driver before it, return the licence to him in exchange for the temporary acknowledgment given under sub- section (3). As per sub-section (3) of Section 206, a police officer or other person seizing a licence under sub-section (2) shall give to the person surrendering the licence a temporary acknowledgment therefor and such acknowledgement shall authorise the holder to drive until the licence has been returned to him or until such date as may be specified by the police officer or other person in the acknowledgement, whichever is earlier. As per the proviso to sub-section (3), if any Magistrate, police officer or other person authorised by the State Government in this behalf is, on an application made to him, satisfied that the licence cannot be, or has not been returned to the holder thereof before the date specified in the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 30 acknowledgment for any reason for which the holder is not responsible, the Magistrate, police officer or other person, as the case may be, may extend the period of authorisation to drive to such date as may be specified in the acknowledgment.
8.23. Sub-section (4) of Section 206 of the MV Act, inserted by Section 88 of the of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, a police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall, if he has reason to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle has committed an offence under any of Section 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 194C, 194D, or 194E, seize the driving licence held by such driver and forward it to the licensing authority for disqualification or revocation proceedings under Section 19. As per the proviso to sub-section (4), the person seizing the licence shall give to the person surrendering the licence a temporary acknowledgment therefor, but such acknowledgment shall not authorise the holder to drive until the licence has been returned to him.
8.24. Section 207 of the MV Act deals with power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration, permit, etc. As per sub-section (1) of Section 207, any police officer or W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 31 other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 207, where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgment in respect thereof. As per sub-section (2) of Section 207, where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 32 the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose.
8.25. Section 213 of the MV Act deals with appointment of motor vehicles officers. As per sub-section (1) of Section 213, the State Government may, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act, establish a Motor Vehicles Department and appoint as officers thereof such persons as it think fit. As per sub-section (3) of Section 213, the State Government may make rules to regulate the discharge by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power to prescribe the uniform to be worn by them, the authorities to which they shall be subordinate, the duties to be performed by them, the powers (including the powers exercisable by police officers under this Act) to be exercised by them, and the conditions governing the exercise of such powers. As per sub-section (5) of Section 213, in addition to the powers that may be conferred on any officer of the Motor W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 33 Vehicles Department under sub-section (3), such officer as may be empowered by the State Government in this behalf shall also have the powers enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) thereof. The exercise of power by an officer of the Motor Vehicles Department, under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 213, to enter, inspect and search any premises which is in the occupation of a person who, he has reason to believe, has committed an offence under this Act or in which a motor vehicle in respect of which such offence has been committed is kept, is regulated by clauses (i) to (iii) of the proviso to sub- clause (b). As per clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-clause (b) of sub-section (5), where the offence is punishable with fine only the search of any premises which is in occupation of any such person or any premises in which a motor vehicle in respect of which such offence has been committed is kept shall not be made after sunset and before sunrise. Section 213 of the MV Act reads thus;
"213. Appointment of motor vehicles officers. - (1) The State Government may, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act, establish a Motor Vehicles Department and appoint as officers thereof such persons as it think fit.W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 34
(2) Every such officer shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (3) The State Government may make rules to regulate the discharge by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power to prescribe the uniform to be worn by them, the authorities to which they shall be subordinate, the duties to be performed by them, the powers (including the powers exercisable by police officers under this Act) to be exercised by them, and the conditions governing the exercise of such powers.
(4) The Central Government may, having regard to the objects of the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, prescribe the minimum qualifications which the said officers or any class thereof shall possess for being appointed as such.
(5) In addition to the powers that may be conferred on any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department under sub-
section (3), such officer as may be empowered by the State Government in this behalf shall also have the power to, -
(a) make such examination and inquiry as he thinks fit in order to ascertain whether the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder are being observed:
(b) with such assistance, it any, as he thinks fit, enter, inspect and search any premises which is in the occupation of a person who, he has reason to W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 35 believe, has committed an offence under this Act or in which a motor vehicle in respect of which such offence has been committed is kept:
Provided that, -
(i) any such search without a warrant shall be made only by an officer of the rank of a Gazetted Officer;
(ii) where the offence is punishable with fine only the search shall not be made after sunset and before sunrise;
(iii) where the search is made without a warrant, the Gazetted Officer concerned shall record in writing the grounds for not obtaining a warrant and report to his immediate superior that such search has been made;
(c) examine any person and require the production of any register or other document maintained in pursuance of this Act, and take on the spot or otherwise statements of any person which he may consider necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act;
(d) seize or take copies or any registers or documents or portions thereof as he may consider relevant in respect of an offence under this Act which he has reason to believe has been committed;
(e) launch prosecutions in respect of any offence under this Act and to take a bond for ensuring the attendance of the offender before any court;
(f) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed;
Provided that no person shall be compelled under this W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 36 sub-section to answer any question or make any statement tending to incriminate himself.
(6) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall, so far as may be, apply to any search or seizure under this section as they apply to any search or seizure under the authority of any warrant issued under Section 94 of the Code."
9. Chapter V of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'the KMV Rules') deals with control of transport vehicles. Rule 117 deals with necessity for permit. As per sub- rule (1) of Rule 117, a permit under sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the MV Act shall be necessary in the case of any motor vehicle other than an omni bus for private use adapted to carry more than nine persons excluding the driver referred to in sub- section (4) of Section 66 of the MV Act unless specifically exempted by a notification issued by the Government.
9.1. Rule 121 of the KMV Rules deals with Regional Transport Authorities and Rule 133 deals with power of the Regional Transport Authority. Rule 137 deals with State Transport Authority and Rule 138 deals with delegation of powers of the State Transport Authority. As per Rule 138, the State Transport Authority may, for the prompt and convenient despatch of its business, by general or special resolution W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 37 delegate all or any of the powers vested in it to its Secretary, to its Chairman and to the Regional Transport Officers, as stated in the said Rule, provided that no delegation shall be made in respect of the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to
(f) thereof. As per clause (f), no delegation shall be made in respect of the power under Section 86 of the MV Act to cancel a permit. Rule 138 of the KMV Rules read thus;
"138. Delegation of powers of the State Transport Authority.- The State Transport Authority may, for the prompt and convenient despatch of its business, by general or special resolution delegate:
(1) To its Secretary:-
All or any of the powers vested in it provided that no delegation shall be made in respect of the following:-
(a) power under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the Act, to co-ordinate and regulate the activities of the Regional Transport Authorities;
(b) power under clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the Act, to settle disputes of differences of opinion between the Regional Transport Authorities;
(c) power under sub-section (4) of Section 68 of the Act, to issue directions to the Regional Transport Authorities;
(d) power under Sections 71 and 72 of the Act to refuse stage carriage permits;
(e) power under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act to refuse contract carriage permits;
W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 38
(f) power under Section 86 of the Act to cancel a permit. (2) To its Chairman:-
(a) all the powers that may be delegated to the Secretary under sub-rule (1):
Provided that in cases where the Chairman and the Secretary have both been delegated with the same powers of the State Transport Authority, the Secretary shall not exercise the powers which are exercised by the Chairman.
(3) To the Regional Transport Officers.- All the powers that may be delegated to the Secretary under sub-rule (1):
Provided that cases where the Chairman, Secretary and the Regional Transport Officers have been delegated with the same powers of the State Transport Authority, the Regional Transport Officers shall not exercise the powers which are exercised by the Chairman or the Secretary."
9.2. Rule 143 of the KMV Rules deals with application for permits and Rule 144 deals with form of permits. Rule 145 deals with guiding principles for grant, variation, suspension or cancellation of stage carriage permits and Rule 154 deals with carriage of goods in stage and contract carriages. As per sub-
rule (5) of Rule 154, a contract carriage permit may authorise the use of a vehicle for the carriage of personal or house-hold effects of a hirer but not the carriage of general merchandise. W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 39
9.3. Rule 228 of the KMV Rules deals with production of permit on demand. As per Rule 228, permit shall be produced on demand at any reasonable time by the Secretaries of the State or Regional Transport Authorities, officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector or Police Officers not below the rank of Sub Inspector. As per the proviso to Rule 228, if a permit is not at the time in possession of the person to whom demand is made, it shall be sufficient compliance with this rule if such person produces it within ten days at any police station in the State which he specifies to the officer. As per Rule 229, which deals with inspecting authority for permit, Magistrates, officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector and Police Officers in uniform not below the rank of Sub Inspector may mount any transport vehicle for the purpose of inspecting the permit.
9.4. Rule 231 of the KMV Rules deals with inspection of public service vehicles. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 231, any of the persons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of the said sub- rule may, at any time when a public service vehicle is in a public place call upon the driver of the vehicle to stop the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 40 vehicle and keep it at rest for such time as may be necessary to enable him to make reasonable examination of the number of passengers and other contents of the vehicle so as to satisfy himself that the provisions of the Act and of these rules and the provisions and conditions of the permit in respect of the vehicle are being complied with. As per clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 231, any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector is authorised to exercise the powers under the said Rule. Rule 231 reads thus;
"231. Inspection of public service vehicles.- (1) Any of the following persons may, at any time when a public service vehicle is in a public place call upon the driver of the vehicle to stop the vehicle and keep it at rest for such time as may be necessary to enable him to make reasonable examination of the number of passengers and other contents of the vehicle so as to satisfy himself that the provisions of the Act and of these rules and the provisions and conditions of the permit in respect of the vehicle are being complied with.
(a) any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector,
(b) any Police Officer in uniform not below the rank of Sub Inspector,
(c) any Officer of the Central Narcotics Department of W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 41 and above the rank of Sub Inspector authorised in this behalf and carrying on in his person, while on duty, identity card issued by the Narcotics Commissioner,
(d) The District Collector of the respective District,
(e) any Minister of the Government.
(2) Any Chowkidar employed in a chowki post may, at any time when a public service vehicle is near or at the chowki post, call upon the driver of the vehicle to stop the vehicle and to keep it at rest for such time as may be necessary to enable him to make reasonable examination of the contents of the vehicle other than the passengers therein.
(3) Any officer of the Central Excise Department in uniform not below the rank of Inspector may, at any time when a public service vehicle is in a public place, call upon the driver of the vehicle to stop the vehicle and keep it at rest for such time as it may be necessary to enable the officer to make a reasonable examination of the contents of the vehicle to satisfy himself that excisable goods and contraband articles are not being carried in the vehicle."
9.5. Rule 348 of the KMV Rules deals with production of certificate of registration and fitness on demand. As per Rule 348, Magistrates, officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector and Police Officers in uniform not below the rank of Sub Inspector W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 42 are authorised to demand the production of the certificate of registration and the certificate of insurance of any vehicle and where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, also the certificate of fitness and the permit. Rule 351 of the KMV Rules deals with officers empowered to seize vehicles and documents. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 351, Magistrates, Police officers in uniform not below the rank of Sub Inspector, officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector are authorised to; (a) seize any identification mark carried on, or any document produced by the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle under the provisions of Section 206 of the Act; and (b) seize, detain and arrange for the temporary safe custody of motor vehicle under the provisions of Section 207 of the Act. Rule 351 reads thus;
"351. Officers empowered to seize vehicles and documents.- (1) Magistrates, Police Officers in uniform not below the rank of Sub Inspector, officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector are authorised to:
(a) seize any identification mark carried on, or any document produced by the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle under the provisions of Section 206 of the Act.
(b) seize, detain and arrange for the temporary safe W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 43 custody of motor vehicle under the provisions of Section 207 of the Act:
Provided that any officer of the Public Works Department not below the rank of Assistant Engineer is also authorised to exercise the powers under clause (b) when by reason of the unauthorised operation of any motor vehicle, on a route or area under the charge of or within the jurisdiction the officer, such action is due under Section 270 of the Act.
(2) Where a motor vehicle is seized under sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Act by an officer authorised under sub-rule (1), he shall-
(a) prepare a mahazar in triplicate containing the details of the vehicle seized and the offence for which it is seized and a seizure list in quadruple showing the articles found detached in the vehicle at the time of seizure and hand over a copy each thereof, to the person in possession and control of the vehicle, under proper acknowledgement;
(b) arrange or cause to be arranged for the safe custody of the vehicle till it is released under sub-
section (2) of the said section:
Provided that where the vehicle is seized by an officer, other than a police officer, he shall hand over the vehicle, immediately, to the officer-in-charge of the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area within which the vehicle was seized, for custody:
Provided further that where the vehicle is seized in a check post by an officer of the Motor Vehicles Department, he may arrange for the safe custody of the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 44 vehicle in the checkpost concerned.
(c) send a report together with copies of the mahazar, seizure list and other records, if any, to the authority or officer authorised by the Government under sub-section (2) of Section 207 of Act to order for the release of the vehicle seized."
10. Distinguishing features between 'stage carriage' and 'contract carriage':-
10.1. Clause (3) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1939 defined 'contract carriage' to mean a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicles as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate of sum and from one point to another without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract; and includes a motor cab notwithstanding that the passengers may pay separate fares. By the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969, which came into force with effect from 02.03.1970, clause (3) of Section 2 was amended and after that amendment clause (3) defined 'contract carriage' to mean a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicle as a W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 45 whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum- (i) on a time basis whether or not with reference to any route or distance, or (ii) from one point to another, and in either case without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract; and includes a motor cab notwithstanding that the passengers may pay separate fares.
10.2. The MV Act, 1939 was repealed and the new Act, i.e., the MV Act, 1988, which came into force with effect from 01.07.1989. There is no change in the definition of 'motor cab' and also 'stage carriage'. However, the definition of 'contract carriage' has been changed. As per clause (7) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1988 'contract carriage' means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of such vehicles as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicles or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum- (a) on a time basis, whether or not with reference to any route or distance; or (b) from one point to another, and W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 46 in either case, without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey; and includes- (i) a maxi cab; and (ii) a motor cab notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for its passengers.
10.3. In Brijendra Kumar Chaudhari v. State of U.P. [(1992) 4 SCC 703] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court viewed that the change in the definition of 'contract carriage' in clause (7) of Section 2 of Act 59 of 1989, was intended to convey more explicitly what the legislature intended to convey by those words even under the old Act.
10.4. The distinguishing features between a 'stage carriage' and a 'contract carriage' came up for consideration before the Apex Court as well as various High Courts, in the context of the provisions under the MV Act, 1935 and the MV Act, 1988, in the following decisions;
10.5. In Roshan Lal Gautham v. State of U.P. and others [AIR 1965 SC 991] in the context of clause (3) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1935, which defined the term 'contract carriage' and clause (29) of Section 2 of the said Act, which defined the term 'stage carriage' a Constitution Bench of W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 47 the Apex Court held that, by clause (3) of Section 2, a contract carriage is defined as a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers on hire or reward under a contract from one point to another without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of that route passengers not included in the contract. A stage carriage is defined by clause (29) of Section 2, as a motor vehicle carrying or adapted to carry passengers for hire or reward at separate fares paid for the whole journey or for stages of the journey. The distinction between the two is that the contract carriage is engaged for the whole of the journey between two points for carriage of a person or persons hiring it but it has not the right to pick up other passengers en route. The stage carriage, on the other hand, runs between two points irrespective of any prior contract and it is boarded by passengers en route who pay the fare for the distance they propose to travel.
10.6. In V. Govindarajulu v. Regional Transport Officer [AIR 1986 AP 7] the question that came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was as follows; when is a 'contract carriage' as defined under clause (3) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1939 said to have W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 48 been used as a 'stage carriage' as defined under clause (29) of Section 2 of the said Act, in order to attract the levy and demand of the increased rate of tax for a stage carriage, as notified under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963. While answering that question, the Full Bench considered the distinguishing features between a 'stage carriage' and a 'contract carriage'. The Full Bench held that the definition of 'contract carriage' is plain and the language not too elastic and wide so as to bring within its sweep a situation never intended by the Legislature. The dominant factor that determines whether a transport vehicle is plied as a contract carriage or as a stage carriage is the actual user of the vehicle and not the permit granted authorising the use. Paragraph 7 of the said decision reads thus;
"7. It would be clear from a combined reading of the definitions of 'contract carriage', 'stage carriage', 'permit', 'public service vehicle' and 'transport vehicle' that a contract carriage and a stage carriage are public service vehicles used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward. A contract carriage or a stage carriage can be used as a transport vehicle under a permit granted by the State or Regional Transport Authority. The permit is for the use of the transport vehicle as a contract carriage or as a stage carriage. Now the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 49 distinction between a contract carriage and a stage carriage is clearly drawn in the definition of 'contract carriage' under section 2(3) and 'stage carriage' under section 2(29) of the Act. The definition of 'contract carriage' is plain and the language not too elastic and wide so as to bring within its sweep a situation never intended by the Legislature. A transport vehicle is a contract carriage when the vehicle as a whole is hired for a fixed or agreed sum under a contract express or implied by a passenger or passengers from one point to another or on a time basis whether or not with reference to any route, and in either case without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract. On the other hand, in the case of a 'stage carriage' a transport vehicle is not hired as a whole and only separate fares are collected from individual passengers either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey and the restrictions relating to a contract carriage use of the vehicle as a whole for a fixed sum and the journey between two points without a right to pick up passengers en route or set down passengers are not there. In this context Rule 213 [sic:
Rule 185] of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules which lays down additional conditions for the permits becomes relevant. Sub-rule IV condition (vii) [sic: Rule 185(1)(e)(v)] makes it obligatory for the owner of a contract carriage to maintain a list of passengers travelling in the vehicle in the form prescribed therein in respect of each trip and such list shall be produced before the checking officer on demand by him. Thus, it W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 50 is clear that the dominant factor that determines whether a transport vehicle is plied as a contract carriage or as a stage carriage is the actual user of the vehicle and not the permit granted authorising the use."
(underline supplied) 10.7. In V. Govindarajulu's case (supra) the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dealing with a case in which, a contract carriage bearing registration No. AAA-1999 was found carrying 49 adult passengers in all from Tadipatri to Anantapur. It was stopped and checked by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Anantapur on 25.09.1984 at 4.00 pm near Singanamala tank on Anantapur - Tadipatri road. All the passengers boarded the vehicle at Tadipatri bus stand. They paid an individual fare of Rs.5/- each. All the passengers did not belong to a single party and each was travelling on his own work. The trip sheet maintained in the bus did not indicate any contract, express or implied, between the passengers and the owner of the contract carriage. Therefore, the Motor Vehicles Inspector concluded that the vehicle was illegally used as a stage carriage by collecting individual fares. Based on the check report submitted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Anantapur, the Regional Transport Officer issued a show-cause W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 51 notice to the registered owner of the contract carriage. The registered owner submitted his explanation. The Regional Transport Officer on a consideration of the report of the checking officer found that the contract carriage had been illegally used as a stage carriage, holding that all the passengers that boarded the contract carriage paid individual fare of Rs.5/-, that there was no express or implied contract between the passengers and the contract carriage owner and that the list of passengers maintained did not tally with the passengers that were actually found travelling in the bus. The registered owner was therefore directed to pay the difference of Rs.2,750/- for the quarter ending 30.09.1984 being the difference in tax payable when the vehicle is used as a contract carriage and the tax payable when the vehicle is used as a stage carriage. Aggrieved against the said decision, the owner of the contract carriage filed writ petition before the High Court, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. When W.P.No.15820 of 1984 came up for hearing before the Division Bench, the learned Judges felt the necessity to have an authoritative pronouncement by a Full Bench on the question and accordingly referred that writ W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 52 petition and cases involving similar question to the Full Bench.
10.8. In V. Govindarajulu's case (supra), it was contended before the Full Bench that, the mere fact that individual fares were collected from the passengers does not make the vehicle a stage carriage. The permit was for the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage and to ply between two fixed places and all the passengers who travelled in the vehicle were travelling only between those two places and no passenger was picked up on the way, and the user of the vehicle was as a contract carriage and not as a stage carriage. If no passengers were picked up or set down along the line of the route, the vehicle cannot be classified as a stage carriage. The Full Bench found that the said contention ignores the essential part of the definition of 'contract carriage', namely, that the contract, express or implied, to use the vehicle must be as a whole for a fixed sum. The essential condition is that a single party or person should be exercising full control for the use of the vehicle. If there is no single contract in respect of the vehicle and if no person or leader of the party could exercise full control of the vehicle and several passengers have separately contracted for the use of the vehicle and paid W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 53 individual fares, such a transport vehicle cannot fall within the definition of contract carriage. But if there is a prior contract for the use of the vehicle as a whole with the owner, the mere fact that individual fares were collected by the leader of the party from the passengers does not make the vehicle a stage carriage. Paragraph 8 of the said decision reads thus;
"8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended:
The mere fact that individual fares were collected from the passengers does not make the vehicle a stage carriage. There must be a valid permit for the use of the vehicle as a stage carriage. The valid permit held by the petitioners in these cases was only for the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage and to ply between two fixed places and all the passengers who travelled in the vehicle were travelling only between those two places and no passenger was picked up on the way and the user of the vehicle was as a contract carriage and not as a stage carriage. It is essential for a contract carriage to be classified as a stage carriage, that the contract carriage should be able to pick up or set down along the line of the route passengers not included in the contract. If no passengers were picked up or set down along the line of the route, the vehicle cannot be classified as a stage carriage. This contention, in our view, ignores the essential part of the definition of 'contract carriage', namely, that the contract, express or implied, to use the vehicle must be as a whole for a fixed sum. The essential condition is that a single party or person W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 54 should be exercising full control for the use of the vehicle. In other words, was there a single contract in respect of the vehicle as a whole? If there is no single contract in respect of the vehicle and if no person or leader of the party could exercise full control of the vehicle and several passengers have separately contracted for the use of the vehicle and pay individual fares, such a transport vehicle cannot fall within the definition of contract carriage. But if there is a prior contract for the use of the vehicle as a whole with the owner, the mere fact that individual fares were collected by the leader of the party from the passengers does not make the vehicle a stage carriage. Though a contract carriage and a stage carriage are public service vehicles as defined under Section 2(25) of the Act, it is in the nature of the user that the distinction between the two types of transport vehicles is drawn."
(underline supplied) 10.9. In V. Govindarajulu's case (supra), the Full Bench held that, the essential difference between a contract carriage and a stage carriage is that in the former there is a prior contract between the passenger or passengers for the use of the vehicle as a whole for a fixed or agreed sum while in the latter there is absence of such a prior contract and the passengers board the bus en route and pay the fare for the distance they propose to travel. The Full Bench disagreed with W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 55 the statement of law made by an earlier Division Bench that the essential condition for holding that a motor vehicle was plying as a stage carriage is that it should have picked up passengers en route. Paragraphs 13 to 16 of the said decision read thus;
"13. The Supreme Court in Roshan Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 991 pointed out the distinction between a contract carriage and a stage carriage as defined under section 2(3) and 2(29) thus -
"contract carriage is engaged for the whole of the journey between two points for carriage of a person or persons hiring it, but it has not the right to pick up other passengers en route. The stage carriage, on the other hand, runs between two points irrespective of any prior contract and it is boarded by passengers en route who pay the fare for the distance they propose to travel."
14. Thus, the essential difference between a contract carriage and a stage carriage is that in the former there is a prior contract between the passenger or passengers for the use of the vehicle as a whole for a fixed or agreed sum while in the latter there is absence of such a prior contract and the passengers board the bus en route and pay the fare for the distance they propose to travel.
15. The unreported decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 898 of 1972 and W.A.No.943 of 1973 preferred against W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 56 the decision in W.P.No.898 of 1972 and W.A.No.17 of 1977 in which decision in W.A.No.943 of 1973 was followed, are not of much assistance to the learned counsel. In W.P.No.898 of 1972 undoubtedly there was a prior agreement entered into by one Babu Rao to take a party of persons from Vijayawada to Hyderabad and back and the vehicle was engaged as a whole for hire for a fixed amount of Rs.400/-. Therefore, the learned Judge rightly held that the transport vehicle was used as a contract carriage. In W.A.No.943 of 1973, the decision in W.P.No.898 of 1972 was merely affirmed and in W.A.No.17 of 1977 the decision in W.A.No.943 of 1973 was followed. The learned counsel, however, submits that there was a discordant note struck from the earlier decision in W.P.No.6127 of 1970 and W.A.No.131 of 1972 in W.P.No.3714 of 1982 by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Madhava Reddy, A.C.J., and Punnayya, J. It is true that in that case the learned Judges observed that "The essential condition for holding that a motor vehicle was plying as a stage carriage is that it should have picked up passengers or set down passengers en route. So long as all the passengers were picked up at the starting point, in this case at Bangalore and were set down at the last point, i.e., Madras, and were not set down anywhere en route, the contract carriage which was permitted to proceed from Bangalore to Madras with 35 passengers cannot be said to have plied as a stage carriage. Suffice to refer to a judgment of this Court in W.A.No.17 of 1977. W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 57
Our learned brother Ramachandra Rao, J., speaking for the Bench held: The mere fact that individual fares were collected from the passengers did not lead to the conclusion that the contract carriage was used as a stage carriage."
16. With great respect to the learned Judges we find it difficult to agree with the statement of law made that the essential condition for holding that a motor vehicle was plying as a stage carriage is that it should have picked up passengers en route. Such limited operation of the definition of contract carriage is not permissible on the plain language employed in the definition."
(underline supplied) 10.10. In Brijendra Kumar Chaudhari v. State of U.P. [(1992) 4 SCC 703], the question that came up for consideration of a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was as to whether the contract carries permit holders of 'mini buses' are entitled to pick up individual passengers at the starting point of their journey. Clause (d) of Section 2 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Act, 1976 define 'mini bus' to mean an omni bus which is constructed or adapted to carry not more than thirty five persons excluding the driver. The Apex Court noticed that, clause (3) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1939 defined 'contract carriage' to mean a motor vehicle which W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 58 carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicles as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate of sum and from one point to another without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract; and includes a motor cab notwithstanding that the passengers may pay separate fares. By the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 56 of 1969), which came into force with effect from 02.03.1970, clause (3) of Section 2 was amended and after that amendment, clause (3) defined 'contract carriage' to mean a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum- (i) on a time basis whether or not with reference to any route or distance, or (ii) from one point to another, and in either case without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract; and includes a motor cab notwithstanding that the passengers may pay separate fares. The MV Act, 1939 was repealed and the new Act, i.e., the MV Act, 1988 (Act 59 of 1988) came into force with effect from 01.07.1989. There is no change in the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 59 definition of 'motor cab' and also 'stage carriage'. The definition of 'contract carriage', however, has been changed. As per clause (7) of Section 2 of Act 59 of 1988 'contract carriage' means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of such vehicles as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicles or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum- (a) on a time basis, whether or not with reference to any route or distance; or (b) from one point to another, and in either case, without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey; and includes- (i) a maxi cab; and (ii) a motor cab notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for its passengers. In paragraph 7 of the judgment [@ page 707 of SCC] the Apex Court viewed that the change in the definition of 'contract carriage' in clause (7) of Section 2 of Act 59 of 1989 was intended to convey more explicitly what the legislature intended to convey by those words even under the old Act. The Apex Court noticed that the Legislature has W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 60 used a new word 'maxi cab' and that is defined in clause (22) of Section 2 of Act 59 of 1989 to mean any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or reward. There is no definition of 'mini bus' in the MV Act. In the light of the definition set out in clause (d) of Section 2 of the of the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Act, 1976 and the other definitions in Act 59 of 1989 only a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than thirty five passengers excluding the driver and which is not a 'maxi cab" or 'motor cab' will normally be treated as a 'mini bus'. It will not come under the definition of 'motor car' in clause (26) of Section 2, as it is a transport vehicle within the meaning of clause (47) of Section 2. But the definition of 'omni bus' is wide enough to include within it 'mini bus' as well. Therefore, the Apex Court held that a contract carriage permit granted in respect of a 'mini bus' will fall under the main part of the definition in clause (7) of Section 2 of Act 59 of 1989. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said decision read thus;
"5. The question which thus arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the contract carries permit holders of mini buses are entitled to pick up individual W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 61 passengers at the starting point of their journey.
6. It would be convenient and necessary at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act). Broadly the public passenger transport motor vehicles recognised under the Act were 'motor cab' and 'omnibus' which in turn with reference to its user permit is either a 'contract carriage' or a 'stage carriage'. These descriptive vehicles were defined in the old Act as it was originally enacted as under:
"2.(15) 'motor cab' means any motor vehicles constructed, adapted or used to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver, for hire or reward."
'Omnibus' and 'maxi cab' were not defined in the original Act but definition of 'omnibus' was inserted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 which reads as under:
"2.(18A) 'omnibus' means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver."
'Stage carriage' was defined in Section 2(29) of the Old Act as follows:
"2.(29) 'stage carriage' means a motor vehicles carrying or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey."
'Contract carriage' was defined in Section 2(3) and that as it stood prior to 1970 was under:
W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 62
"(3) 'contract carriage' means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicles as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate of sum and from one point to another without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract; and includes a motor cab notwithstanding that the passengers may pay separate fares."
After it was amended by Act 56 of 1969 with effect from March 2, 1970 the definition read:
"(3) 'contract carriage" means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum-
(i) on a time basis whether or not with reference to any route or distance, or
(ii) from one point to another, and in either case without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract; and includes a motor cab notwithstanding that the passengers may pay separate fares."
7. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed and the new Act 59 of 1988 came to force as already stated with effect from July 1, 1989. There is no change in the definition of 'motor cab'. The definition of 'stage carriage' also remains the same. The definition of 'contract carriage', however, has been changed which in our view was intended to convey more explicitly what W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 63 the legislature intended to convey by those words even under the old Act and that definition reads as follows:
"2.(7) 'contract carriage' means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of such vehicles as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicles or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum-
(a) on a tune basis, whether or not with reference to any route or distance; or
(b) from one point to another, and in either case, without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey; and includes-
(i) a maxi cab; and
(ii) a motor cab notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for its passengers."
The Legislature has used a new word 'maxi cab' and that is defined as follows:
"2.(22) 'maxi cab' means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or reward."
8. There is no definition of 'mini bus' in the Motor Vehicles Act but we have to look up to its definition only W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 64 in the U.P. Act above referred to. In the light of that definition set out above and the other definitions in the New Act only a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than thirty five passengers excluding the driver and which is not a 'maxi cab" or 'motor cab' will normally be treated as a mini bus. It will not come under the definition of 'motor car' in Section 2(26) as it is a transport vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(47). But the definition of 'omni bus' is wide enough to include within it mini bus as well. Therefore a contract carriage permit granted in respect of a mini bus will fall under the main part of the definition in Section 2(7) of the Act." (underline supplied) 10.11. In Brijendra Kumar Chaudhari's case (supra) one of the contentions raised before the Three-Judge Bench, by the learned counsel for the appellants was that, though under a contract carriage permit only those persons who are mentioned in the contract could be picked up and stopping on the route to pick up or set down passengers is prohibited, there could be several contracts because definition states that it is a motor vehicle which 'carries a passenger or passengers'. The Apex Court held that it is not possible to read the words 'under a contract' in the context as referring to both a single contract and more than one contract. If the construction placed by the learned counsel is accepted there would be no W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 65 distinction between stage carriage and contract carriage permits. A stage carriage is intended to meet the requirements of the general travelling public. But the contract carriages are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or party for their transport from place to place and the whole vehicle is at their disposal. The contract shall be prior and the persons who are to be carried shall be known prior to the journey is also clear from the other limitation that the vehicle cannot stop to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey. If as contended by the learned counsel, contract carriage permit holder can pick up individual passengers at the starting point of the journey it is virtually a stage carriage with corridor restriction. The definition in the Act has added the words 'for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein (contract)' which were not there earlier. These words clearly show that there must be a prior contract and the passengers shall be settled in advance. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said decision read thus;
"9. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that though under a contract carriage W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 66 permit only those persons who are mentioned in the contract could be picked up and stopping on the route to pick up or set down passengers is prohibited, there could be several contracts because definition states that it is motor vehicle which 'carries a passenger or passengers'.
10. The definition makes it clear that in order that vehicle could be used to transport passenger or passengers there must be a prior contract express or implied that the contract must indicate as to who are the passengers to be carried that the contract shall have been entered into by a person with the holder of the permit or any person authorised by him and that the engagement under 'a contract' is for use of the vehicle as a whole. It is not possible to read the words 'under a contract' in the context as referring to both a single contract and more that one contract. If the construction placed by the learned counsel is accepted there would be no distinction between stage carriage and contract carriage permits. Both these clauses of permits are intended to meet different requirements. A stage carriage is intended to meet the requirements of the general travelling public. But the contract carriages are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or party for their transport from place to place and the whole vehicle is at their disposal. This is also made clear in Section 88(8) of the Act corresponding to Section 63(6) of the old Act wherein it is provided:
"88(8). Notwithstanding anything contained in W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 67 sub-section (1), but subject to any rules that may be made under this Act by the Central Government, the Regional Transport Authority of any one region or, as the case may be, the State Transport Authority, may, for the convenience of the public, grant a special permit in relation to a vehicle covered by a permit issued under Section 72 (including a reserve stage carriage) or under Section 74 or under sub-section (9) of this Section for carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract, and in every case where such special permit is granted, the Regional Transport Authority shall assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a special distinguishing mark in the form and manner specified by the Central Government and such special permit shall be valid in any other region or state without the counter signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of the State Transport Authority of other State, as the case may be."
That the contract shall be prior and the persons who are to be carried shall be known prior to the journey is also clear from the other limitation that the vehicle cannot stop to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey. As pointed out by this Court in Roshan Lal Gautham v. State of U.P., [1965 (1) SCR 841 : AIR 1961 SC 991]:
W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 68
"The contract carriage is engaged for the whole of the journey between two points for carriage of a person or persons hiring it but it has not the right to pick up other passengers on route. The stage carriage on the other hand, runs between two points irrespective of any prior contract and it is boarded by passengers en route who pay the fare for distance they propose to travel."
If as contended by the learned counsel, contract carriage permit holder can pick up individual passengers at the starting point of the journey it is virtually a stage carriage with corridor restriction. Some express buses and stage carriages with corridor restriction pick up passengers at the starting point of the journey and drop them at the last termini of the route without the right to pick up or drop passengers on the notified route between the two termini. Further the definition in the Act has added the words 'for the carriage of passenger mentioned therein (contract)' which were not there earlier. These words clearly show that there must be a prior contract and the passengers shall be settled in advance." (underline supplied) 10.12. In Brijendra Kumar Chaudhari's case (supra) another contention raised before the Three-Judge Bench, by the learned counsel for the appellants was that, the latter part of the definition of contract carriage which says that 'notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for its passengers' would show that there could be separate fares for W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 69 its passengers and that, therefore, individual passengers could be picked up at the starting point. Repelling the said contention, the Apex Court held that, the definition of a contract carriage under clause (7) of Section 2 is exhaustive and takes into its fold all types of vehicles which are permitted to ply as contract carriage irrespective of their size and seating capacity. In the main part of the definition which applies to all vehicles, certain limitations and conditions are referred to as implied in the grant of a contract carriage permit. However, an exception has been made in the case of a motor cab and that is notwithstanding separate fares are charged from its passengers a contract carriage permit could be granted in favour of such motor cab. But even in the case of a motor cab the condition relating to not picking up or dropping passengers on the route is applicable. Mini bus is neither a maxi cab nor a motor cab and, therefore, the exception provided in the last part of the definition will not be applicable to the case of a mini bus. Paragraph 11 of the judgment reads thus;
"11. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the latter part of the definition of contract carriage which says that 'notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for its passengers' would W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 70 show that there could be separate fares for its passengers and that, therefore, individual passengers could be picked up at the starting point. According to him this is an exception to an otherwise contract carriage permit under the main part of the definition of Section 2(7). This contention is unsustainable. The definition of a contract carriage under Section 2(7) is exhaustive and takes into its fold all types of vehicles which are permitted to ply as contract carriage irrespective of their size and seating capacity. In the main part of the definition which applies to all vehicles certain limitations and conditions are referred to as implied in the grant of a contract carriage permit. However, an exception has been made in the case of a motor cab and that is notwithstanding separate fares are charged from its passengers a contract carriage permit could be granted in favour of such motor cab. But even in the case of a motor cab the condition relating to not picking up or dropping passengers on the route is applicable. The exception also is applicable only where the motor cab is under its permit or under any law entitled or eligible to charge separate fares from its passengers. The grant of contract carriage permit in respect of a motor cab will automatically attract all the conditions provided in the main part of the section. However, if there is any other provision or law under which the motor cabs are permitted to charge separate fares from its passengers then notwithstanding their entitlement to charge separate fares from its passengers it would be considered as having a contract carriage W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 71 permit. As already stated mini bus is neither a maxi cab nor a motor cab and, therefore, the exception provided in the last part of the definition will not be applicable to the case of a mini bus. In fact it was not the case of the appellants themselves that they are running a maxi cab or that their vehicles are motor cabs. For the foregoing reasons the appeals were dismissed. No costs."
(underline supplied) 10.13. In Nirmala Jagdishchandra Kabra v.
Transport Commissioner [(1997) 9 SCC 227] the Apex Court held that the very permit for which the contract for carriage of the passengers granted should contain the names of the passengers to carry from one destination to another destination without picking up or setting down en route for hire or reward but when the holder of a permit is another and permits them to carry the passengers and make the contract dehors those mentioned in the list of passengers enclosed to the permit as contract carriage and take the passengers from one destination to another, even without picking up or setting down en route, the necessary consequence would be that the vehicle has been or is being used as a stage carriage but not a contract carriage. Under those circumstances, obviously, the authority had rightly detained the vehicle for the contravention W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 72 of the conditions of the permit. Paragraph 4 of the said decision reads thus;
"4. It is contended by Shri. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has taken the vehicle on hire basis from the owner of the vehicle who had the permit for contract carriage of the passengers from one destination to another. They are not collecting any individual fare en route by picking up or setting down the passengers. They are picking up passengers from one place and taking them for tour to the other destination and, therefore, it is a 'contract carriage' within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act. It is not a Stage carriage permit but one of contract carriage and, therefore, the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law. It is true that if the holder of the vehicle obtains a contract carriage, the owner may carry a passenger or passengers for hire or reward on contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of such vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum. In other words, the very permit for which the contract for carriage of the passengers granted should contain the names of the passengers to carry from one destination to another destination without picking up or setting down en route for hire or reward but when the holder of a permit is another and permits them to carry the passengers and make the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 73 contract dehors those mentioned in the list of passengers enclosed to the permit as contract carriage and take the passengers from one destination to another, even without picking up or setting down en route, the necessary consequence would be that the vehicle has been or is being used as a stage carriage but not a contract carriage. Under those circumstances, obviously, the authority had rightly detained the vehicle for the contravention of the conditions of the permit. Therefore, the mandamus, as sought for, was rightly refused by the High Court. The learned counsel sought reliance on a judgment of the Madras High Court in N. Krishnasami Chetty v. The Licensing Officer, AIR 1988 Mad. 274. The learned Judges have not correctly appreciated the legal position. Therefore, it is not correct in view of the above law. It is accordingly overruled." (underline supplied) 10.14. In State of A.P. v. Noorulla Khan [(2004) 6 SCC 194] the Apex Court held that, the definition of 'contract carriage' in clause (7) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that, (i) In order that a vehicle can be used to transport passenger/passengers there must a prior contract express or implied; (ii) Contract shall have to be entered into by a person with the holder of the permit or any person authorised by him; (iii) Engagement under the contract must be for use of the vehicle as a whole; (iv) Contract must W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 74 indicate the names of passengers to be carried in the vehicle;
(v) Vehicle is engaged on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum on a time basis whether or not with reference to any route or distance or from one point to another; (vi) Without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey.
10.15. In Noorulla Khan's case the Apex Court was dealing with the Civil Appeals filed by State of Andhra Pradesh and others challenging the judgment of a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, whereby the High Court struck down clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 297A and clause (f) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 297A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 being ultra vires the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 297A and clause (f) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 297A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, read thus;
"297A. Special provisions regarding licensing of agents engaged in the sales of tickets or in otherwise soliciting customers for public service vehicles.- (1) In this rule, unless the context otherwise requires, W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 75
(a) & (b) xxx xxx
(c) 'Common purpose of journey' means the intention shared alike by all the persons travelling by the public service vehicles;
(i) to attend a meeting, gathering or function, social, religious, political and the like, or
(ii) to go on a pilgrimage or tour to visit places of tourist's interest or both. But it shall not include the intention or the act of such persons of merely travelling from one common point to another.
xxx xxx xxx xxx (6) An agent's licence shall be subject to the following conditions.-
(a) to (e) xxx xxx
(f) Where the public service vehicle has been, as a whole, engaged by a hiring party an agreement shall be drawn up in writing and executed by the agent and the hiring party or its authorised representative containing the following essential particulars and stipulations, namely:
(i) Name, Father's/Husband's Name, Age/Occupation and full postal address of the members or/representative of the hiring party who executes the agreement;
(ii) An Annexure containing the list of all members of the hiring party giving their particulars in the following form:
1. Serial number,
2. Name of the Member:W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 76
3. Father's/Husband's name:
4. Age:
5. Full Postal Address:
(iii) The nature of the common purpose of the journey;
(iv) The period for which the vehicle is engaged by the hiring party;
(v) The places to be visited by the hiring party;
(vi) The place or places to be specified where all or some to be specified of the members of the hiring party are to be picked up or let down under the agreement;
(vii) Hire charges;
a) if payable in a lumpsum, the amount so
payable; or
b) if calculable at a rate, the rate so agreed
upon; and
c) in either case, the amount if any paid in
advance and the time for the payment of the
balance.
(viii) Additional charges, if any, payable in case the journey is delayed or extended at the instance of the hiring party."
10.16. In Noorulla Khan's case, in the context of clause
(c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 297A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the Apex Court held that, the distinction between a stage carriage permit or a contract carriage permit as envisaged by the Legislature has to be maintained as the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 77 two types of permits are intended to meet different requirements. The contract carriages are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or a party for their transport to a destination/destinations. The vehicle has to be hired as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract. There has to be only one contract for carrying the passengers mentioned in the contract from one destination to another. An agent or a group of persons/individuals cannot hire a public service vehicle for going from one place to another with passengers having different purposes. If such a construction is put then there would be no distinction between stage carriage or contract carriage permits. If contract carriage permit holder is permitted to pick up individual or a few of them from the starting point of journey and drop them at the last terminus of the route it would virtually be a Stage Carriage with corridor restriction. Stage carriage is intended to meet the requirements of the general public travelling from one destination to another having different purposes whereas a contract carriage is meant for those who want to hire a public service vehicle as a whole collectively for their transport from W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 78 one destination to another having the same purpose. The Apex Court held that the High Court was not right in holding that the travelling party as a whole need not have a common purpose for their travel and it was sufficient if they had a common destination. The view taken runs counter to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Brijendra Kumar Chaudhari [(1992) 4 SCC 703] and Nirmala Jagdish Chandra Kabra [(1997) 9 SCC 227] and, therefore, bad in law.
10.17. In Noorulla Khan's case (supra), the Apex Court held that the High Court was not right in declaring ultra vires the Rules framed by the State Government [i.e., clause
(c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 297A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989] providing that the party hiring the contract carriage vehicle should, not only, have the intention of travelling to the same destination but should also have the common purpose of travelling as well. In clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 297A 'common purpose' has been defined to mean the intention shared alike by all the persons travelling by the public service vehicles to attend a meeting, gathering or function, social, religious, political and the like, or to go to a pilgrimage or visit to place of tourist's interest or both. That it W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 79 would not include the intention or the act of such persons merely travelling from one common point to another. Clause
(c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 297A framed by the State Government does not run counter to the provisions of clause (7) of Section 2 of the MV Act either in its intent or in its expression. The rule is in consonance with the intent of clause (7) of Section 2 of the Act. The same has been framed to fulfill the object with which clause (7) of Section 2 has been enacted. Any other interpretation would obliterate the distinction between a stage carriage permit and a contract carriage permit. The Apex Court held clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 297A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules to be intra vires and the finding to the contra recorded by the High Court was set aside. Paragraphs 12 to 16 of the said decision read thus;
"12. In Rule 297A(1)(c) 'common purpose of journey' has been explained to mean common intention shared by all the persons travelling by the vehicle under the contract to attend a meeting, gathering or function which may be social, religious, political and the like or to go on a pilgrimage or place of tourist's interest but it shall not include the intention or the act of such persons of merely travelling from one common point to another.W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 80
13. High Court has held that 'common purpose' means that the passengers travelling together need to have, the common intention to travel to a common destination but they need not share the common intention of travelling for the same purpose as well. For instance, where a group of persons engage a contract carriage vehicle for travelling from Delhi to Agra they have the common intention of travelling to the same destination, i.e., from Delhi to Agra but their purpose of travel from Delhi to Agra could be different. In other words, according to the High Court, the words "under a contract" would include both single contract and more than one contract.
14. This point was examined by this Court in Brijendra Kumar Chaudhari v. State of U.P., 1992 (4) SCC 703. It was held that it was not correct to read the words "under a contract" occurring in Section 2(7) of the Act to mean as referring to both a single contract and more than one contract. And in case such a construction is placed then the distinction between the contract carriage and the stage carriage perm would be lost and obliterated. It was held: (SCC pp. 708-10, para.10) "10. xxx [already quoted hereinabove, Para.10.11]"
15. Another case on the point is Nirmala Jagdish Chandra Kabra v. Transport Commissioner, 1997 (9) SCC 227. In this case a writ was filed by an agent who had hired on contract the vehicle from the carriage permit holder seeking an appropriate writ or direction declaring and holding that the authorities had no legal right or power to either seize or detain his vehicles W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 81 solely on the allegation of collection of individual fare from the passengers at the starting point of journey without picking up or dropping the passengers en route. Petitioner was collecting individual fares per passenger from one destination to another but was not using the vehicle as a tourist vehicle hired to one group party. Writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal it was held by this Court:
"4. xxx [already quoted hereinabove, Para.10.13]"
16. The distinction between a stage carriage permit or a contract carriage permit as envisaged by the Legislature has to be maintained as the two types of permits are intended to meet different requirements. The contract carriages are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or a party for their transport to a destination/destinations. The vehicle has to be hired as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract. There has to be only one contract for carrying the passengers mentioned in the contract from one destination to another. An agent or a group of persons/individuals cannot hire a public service vehicle for going from one place to another with passengers having different purposes. If such a construction is put then there would be no distinction between stage carriage or contract carriage permits. If contract carriage permit holder is permitted to pick up individual or a few of them from the starting point of journey and drop them at the last terminus of the route it would virtually be a Stage Carriage with corridor restriction. Stage carriage is intended to meet the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 82 requirements of the general public travelling from one destination to another having different purposes whereas a contract carriage is meant for those who want to hire a public service vehicle as a whole collectively for their transport from one destination to another having the same purpose. High Court was not right in holding that the travelling party as a whole need not have a common purpose for their travel and it was sufficient if they had a common destination. The view taken runs counter to the law laid down by this Court in Brijendra Kumar Chaudhari and Anr. and Nirmala Jagdish Chandra Kabra cases (supra) and, therefore, bad in law. High Court was not right in declaring ultra vires the Rules framed by the State Government providing that the party hiring the contract carriage vehicle should, not only, have the intention of travelling to the same destination but should also have the common purpose of travelling as well. In Rule 297A(1)
(c) 'common purpose' has been defined to mean the intention shared alike by all the persons travelling by the public service vehicles to attend a meeting, gathering or function, social, religious, political and the like, or to go to a pilgrimage or visit to place of tourist's interest or both. That it would not include the intention or the act of such persons merely travelling from one common point to another This Rule framed by the State Government does not run counter to the provisions of Section 2(7) of the Act either in its intent or in its expression. The rule is in consonance with the intent of Section 2(7) of the Act. The same has been framed to W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 83 fulfill the object with which Section 2(7) has been enacted. Any other interpretation would obliterate the distinction between a stage carriage permit and a contract carriage permit."
10.18. In Sunilraj v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (2) KLT 211] this Court held that the fundamental difference between a 'contract carriage' and a 'stage carriage' is that in the former there is a prior contract by the passenger or passengers for that carriage to be used as a whole for a fixed or agreed sum, while in the latter there is absence of such a prior contract and the passengers can board that carriage en route in individual capacity and pay the fare for the distance they travel. Therefore, if a 'contract carriage', which is granted permit under Section 74 of the MV Act is operated as a 'stage carriage', which requires grant of stage carriage permit under Section 72 of the said Act, it will amount to contravention of permit conditions.
10.19. The legal principles that can be culled out from the decisions referred to supra are as follows;
(i) The distinction between a 'contract carriage' and a stage carriage is that a contract carriage is engaged for the whole of the journey between two points for the carriage of a person or persons W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 84 hiring it but it has not the right to pick up other passengers en route. The stage carriage, on the other hand, runs between two points irrespective of any prior contract and it is boarded by passengers en route who pay the fare for the distance they propose to travel. [Roshan Lal Gautham - AIR 1965 SC 991];
(ii) The dominant factor that determines whether a transport vehicle is plied as a 'contract carriage' or as a 'stage carriage' is the actual user of the vehicle and not the permit granted authorising the use. The contract, express or implied, to use the vehicle must be as a whole for a fixed sum. The essential condition is that a single party or person should be exercising full control for the use of the vehicle. If there is no single contract in respect of the vehicle and if no person or leader of the party could exercise full control of the vehicle and several passengers have separately contracted for the use of the vehicle and paid individual fares, such a transport vehicle cannot fall within the definition of 'contract carriage'. But if there is a prior contract for the use of the vehicle as a whole with the owner, the mere fact that individual fares were collected by the leader of the party from the passengers does not make the vehicle a 'stage carriage'. [V. Govindarajulu - AIR 1986 AP 7 (FB)];
(iii) It is not possible to read the words 'under a contract' in clause (7) of Section 2 of the MV Act, W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 85 1989 as referring to both a single contract and more than one contract. If such a construction is accepted there would be no distinction between 'stage carriage' and 'contract carriage' permits. A 'stage carriage' is intended to meet the requirements of the general travelling public. On the other hand, 'contract carriages' are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or party for their transport from place to place and the whole vehicle is at their disposal. The contract shall be prior and the persons who are to be carried shall be known prior to the journey is also clear from the other limitation that the vehicle cannot stop to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey. If the contract carriage permit holder can pick up individual passengers at the starting point of the journey it is virtually a stage carriage with corridor restriction. The definition of 'contract carriage' in clause (7) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1988 has added the words 'for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein' (contract) which were not there in clause (3) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1939 as amended by Act 56 of 1960. These words clearly show that there must be a prior contract and the passengers shall be settled in advance. [Brijendra Kumar Chaudhari - (1992) 4 SCC 703];
(iv) The very permit for which the contract for carriage W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 86 of the passengers granted should contain the names of the passengers to carry from one destination to another destination without picking up or setting down en route for hire or reward but when the holder of a permit is another and permits them to carry the passengers and make the contract dehors those mentioned in the list of passengers enclosed to the permit as contract carriage and take the passengers from one destination to another, even without picking up or setting down en route, the necessary consequence would be that the vehicle has been or is being used as a 'stage carriage' but not a 'contract carriage'. [Nirmala Jagdishchandra Kabra - (1997) 9 SCC 227]
(v) The distinction between a 'stage carriage' permit and a 'contract carriage' permit, as envisaged by the Legislature has to be maintained as the two types of permits are intended to meet different requirements. The 'contract carriages' are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or a party for their transport to a destination/destinations. The vehicle has to be hired as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract. There has to be only one contract for carrying the passengers mentioned in the contract from one destination to another. An agent or a group of persons/individuals cannot hire a public service vehicle for going from one place to another with W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 87 passengers having different purposes. If contract carriage permit holder is permitted to pick up individual or a few of them from the starting point of journey and drop them at the last terminus of the route it would virtually be a 'stage carriage' with corridor restriction. A 'stage carriage' is intended to meet the requirements of the general public travelling from one destination to another having different purposes whereas a 'contract carriage' is meant for those who want to hire a public service vehicle as a whole collectively for their transport from one destination to another having the same purpose. [Noorulla Khan -
(2004) 6 SCC 194];
(vi) The fundamental difference between a 'contract carriage' and a 'stage carriage' is that in the former there is a prior contract by the passenger or passengers for that carriage to be used as a whole for a fixed or agreed sum, while in the latter there is absence of such a prior contract and the passengers can board that carriage en route in individual capacity and pay the fare for the distance they travel. If a 'contract carriage', which is granted permit under Section 74 of the MV Act is operated as a 'stage carriage', which requires grant of stage carriage permit under Section 72 of the said Act, it will amount to contravention of permit conditions. [Sunilraj - 2019 (2) KLT 211].
10.20. Therefore, a 'contract carriage' is meant for those W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 88 who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or a party having the same purpose, for their transport from one place to another. The vehicle has to be hired as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract, i.e., the whole vehicle will be at their disposal. On the other hand, a 'stage carriage' is intended to meet the requirements of the general public travelling from one place to another having different purposes. Therefore, an agent or a group of persons/individuals cannot hire a 'contract carriage' for going from one place to another with passengers having different purposes. If individual passengers having different purposes are picked up in a 'contract carriage', at the starting point of the journey or en route, even if such passengers are included in the contract, it is virtually a 'stage carriage' with corridor restriction.
11. 'Contract Carriage' - Conducting regular service between two points:-
11.1. The petitioners' contract carriages are covered by Exts.P1 to P11 contract carriage permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad authorising the use of such vehicles in all fit roads in Kerala State, except those W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 89 prohibited by law in force. Admittedly, the petitioners' contract carriages are conducting regular service from Palakkad to Thiruvananthapuram, Kozhikode to Thiruvananthapuram and back and also to various other destinations in the State of Kerala. The check reports issued to the petitioners contract carriages for the period from 24.04.2019 to 05.06.2019 are placed on record as Exts.P12 to P42, along with I.A.No.1 of 2019. The said check reports would prima facie show that the contract carriages in question are conducting daily trips from Palakkad to Thiruvananthapuram and back. As per the check reports, the irregularity detected is illegal 'stage carriage' operation, by picking up passengers en route and collecting individual fares, in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the MV Act, punishable under Section 192A of the said Act.
11.2. In the writ petition, the petitioners would contend that The operation of 'contract carriage' services on regular basis on various routes by permitting transportation of passengers from one destination to another destination on payment of tax stipulated by the Government is legally permissible. No prejudice will be caused to any person by W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 90 regular operation of 'contract carriage' services. On the other hand, by the increase of operation of 'contract carriage' vehicles, the travelling public is benefited by convenient journey and the Government is also benefited by increase in revenue. There is no individual ticketing for passengers and there is no collection of differential rate of fares for the passengers, as all the passengers are permitted to travel on the respective vehicles on payment of uniform fare to the group leader who in turn will pay the contract amount to the petitioners.
11.3. As held by the Apex Court in Noorulla Khan's case [(2004) 6 SCC 194], 'contract carriages' are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or a party for their transport to a destination/ destinations. The vehicle has to be hired as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract. There has to be only one contract for carrying the passengers mentioned in the contract from one destination to another. An agent or a group of persons/individuals cannot hire a public service vehicle for going from one place to another with passengers having different purposes. If contract carriage permit holder is W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 91 permitted to pick up individual or a few of them from the starting point of journey and drop them at the last terminus of the route it would virtually be a 'stage carriage' with corridor restriction. In the said decision, the Apex Court held in categorical terms that a 'contract carriage' is meant for those who want to hire a public service vehicle as a whole collectively for their transport from one destination to another having the same purpose. On the other hand, a 'stage carriage' is intended to meet the requirements of the general public travelling from one destination to another having different purposes.
11.4. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Noorulla Khan's case, the passengers in a 'contract carriage' should be a group of persons going from one place to another having the same purpose and the contract shall be to hire the vehicle as a whole for the carriage of the passengers mentioned in the contract. Therefore, if the passengers who were travelling in the petitioners contract carriages at the time of issuance of Exts.P12 to P42 check reports were only commuters going from one place to another having different purposes, it would amount to 'stage carriage' operation in W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 92 contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the MV Act, punishable under Section 192A of the said Act. The intention that can be shared alike by the passengers travelling in a 'contract carriage' is to attend a function, gathering or meeting, political, religious, social and the like; or to visit places of tourist, historical or religious importance; etc. A 'contract carriage' cannot be used to conduct regular service between two points, carrying one set of commuters for the onward journey and another set of commuters for the return journey.
11.5. Relying on the decision of this Court in KSRTC v.
State Transport Authority [1998 (2) KLT 677] the petitioners would contend that a 'contract carriage' permit can be granted on a route as well, in view of the provisions under clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 74 of the MV Act. In the said decision, this Court was dealing with the challenge made by KSRTC against the order of the State Transport Authority, Kerala granting permits/counter signature in favour of the contesting respondents therein to operate contract carriages in inter-state routes covering nationalised routes in the State of Kerala. In the instant case, Exts.P1 to P11 contract carriage W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 93 permits granted to the petitioners are for use of the respective vehicles in all fit roads in Kerala State, except those prohibited by law in force, which cannot be used for conducting regular service between two points carrying one set of commuters for the onward journey and another set of commuters for the return journey.
12. Section 200 of the MV Act - Compounding of an offence punishable under Section 192A of the MV Act:-
12.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that an offence punishable under Section 192A of the MV Act is not compoundable under Section 200 of the said Act.
Moreover, compounding of an offence is conditional upon the willingness of the offender to have the same compounded.
12.2. As per sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the MV Act, no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 94 in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. As per Section 84 of the MV Act, the conditions enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) thereof shall be the conditions of every permit. As per sub-section (1) of Section 192A of the MV Act, whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 192A, the court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.
12.3. Sub-section (1) of Section 192A, as inserted/ substituted by Section 75 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 [with effect from 01.09.2019], provides that whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 95 vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and a fine of ten thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than six months or with fine of ten thousand rupees or with both. As per proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 192A, the Court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.
12.4. Section 200 of the MV Act deals with composition of certain offences. As per sub-section (1) of Section 200, any offence whether committed before or after the commencement of this Act punishable under Section 177, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180, Section 181, Section 182, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 183, Section 184, Section 186, Section 189, sub-section (2) of Section 190, Section 191, Section 192, Section 194, Section 196 or Section 198 may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by such officers or authorities and for such W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 96 amount as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. As per sub-section (2) of Section 200, where an offence has been compounded under sub-section (1), the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of such offence.
12.5. By G.O.(P)No.14/2010/Tran. Dated 05.03.2010 issued by the Government of Kerala, Transport (B) Department, in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 200 of the MV Act and in supersession of the notifications dated 20.03.2002 and 22.03.2002, all officers of and above the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors of the Motor Vehicles Department and all officers of and above the rank of Sub Inspectors in the Traffic Branch of the Police Department and where there is no Traffic Branch, all officers of Local Police of the area of and above the rank of Circle Inspector of Police are authorised to compound the offences punishable under various provisions of the MV Act specified in column (2) of the Schedule to that Government Order, for the amounts specified in column (3) thereof.
12.6. An offence punishable under Section 192A of the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 97 MV Act, which was not compoundable under Section 200, till Section 200 of the MV Act was substituted by Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, with effect from 01.09.2019. As per sub-section (1) of Section 200, as substituted by Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, any offence whether committed before or after the commencement of this Act punishable under Section 177, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180, Section 181, Section 182, Sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 182A, Section 182B, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 183, Section 184 only to the extent of use of handheld communication devices, Section 186, Section 189, sub-section (2) of Section 190, Section 192, Section 192A, Section 194, Section 194A, Section 194B, Section 194C, Section 194D, Section 194E, Section 194F, Section 196, Section 198 may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by such officers or authorities and for such amount as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
12.7. In Ratnakar Rao v. Govt. of A.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 359] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 98 petitioners therein, who are owners of goods motor vehicles covered by National/State permits, challenged the validity of G.O.(Ms.)No.54 dated 31.03.1995 issued by the Department of Transport, Andhra Pradesh enhancing the compounding fee from Rs.10/- per kg. to Rs.100/- per kg. as being violative of the MV Act, 1988 and arbitrary, being violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the said Government Order. The Division Bench noticed that Section 200 of the Act empowers the authorised officer to compound the offences punishable under the provisions enumerated in sub-section (1) thereof. Section 194 is one of the provisions for the offence of which the officer is empowered either before or after the institution of the proceedings for prosecution, to compound such an offence for such amount as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify in this behalf. It is not mandatory that the authorised officer would always compound that offence. It is conditional upon 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 W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 99 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. It is not necessary that Section 200 itself should contain the details in that behalf. The Apex Court held further that, 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. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said decision read thus;
"3. Section 194 of the Act enacts penal sanctions for driving a vehicle in violation of Section 113 to 115 of the Act with a minimum fine of Rs.2,000/- and additional amount of Rs.1,000/- per tonne of excess load together with liability to pay charges for off loading of the excess load. Sub-section (2) thereof imposes penalty on the driver who refuses to stop and submit to do so by the authorised officer in that behalf under Section 114 or refuses to remove or causes to remove the load or part of it, prior to weighment in the form of fine to the extent of Rs.3,000/-. Section 200 of the Act empowers the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 100 authorised officer to compound the offences punishable under the provisions enumerated in sub-section (1) thereof. Section 194 is one of the provisions for the offence of which the officer is empowered either before or after the institution of the proceedings for prosecution, to compound such an offence for such amount as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify in this behalf. Under sub- section (2) thereof, after compounding the offence the accused in custody shall be discharged and the proceedings shall be dropped in respect of such an offence.
4. The contention raised before the High Court and repeated before us by Shri 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 Section 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 W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 101 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 that offence. It is conditional upon 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.
5. It would, therefore, be clear that the Government as a delegate, did not exceed its power under Section 200 W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 102 of the Act in prescribing the compounding fee for the offence punishable under Section 194 of the Act."
(underline supplied) 12.8. In Paramjit Bhasin v. Union of India [(2005) 12 SCC 642] the Apex Court reiterated that compounding of offence under Section 200 of the MV Act can be done either before or after the institution of the prosecution in respect of the enumerated offences.
12.9. In Punitha N. v. State of T. N. and others [AIR 2008 Madras 229] the Madras High Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by an operator of contract carriages covered by All-India permits issued by the State Transport Authority, Karnataka. Since the permits issued in favour of the petitioner cover the State of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry, the petitioner has been paying Motor Vehicle Tax to the Primary State of Karnataka as well as to the other States covered by the permit. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued Notification No. II(2)/HO/109/2000, dated 11.01.2000, which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 02.02.2000. As per the said notification, the officials of the Transport Department, not below the rank of Motor Vehicle W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 103 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 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 cognizable offences. The Government of Tamil Nadu accepted the said suggestion of the Transport Commissioner and 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. The said Government Order was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Though the original Notification, i.e., the notification dated 11.01.2000, referred to the power to levy spot fine against the vehicles coming from other States for certain offences notified therein, the notification dated 14.12.2001, issued under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 104 Act 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 relate to cognizable offences concerned with the safety of the vehicles and they did not cover alleged violations of the conditions contained in the permits. Section 200 of the Act specifically provides for compounding of offences by the person charged and it does not provide for levying of spot fine.
12.10. In Punitha's case, in the writ petition, it was alleged that the officers of the Transport Department 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 petitioner contended that the Checking Officers can only issue check reports and forward them to the Primary Authority for initiating action for W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 105 suspension or cancellation of permits for the alleged violations of the conditions of permits. Thereafter, necessary action can be initiated against the permit holders after giving them an opportunity to submit their explanation and by following the procedure prescribed by law. However, the Checking Officers 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, though notification dated 14.12.2001, as well as Section 200 of the MV Act, refer to compounding of offences and they do not refer to spot fines. Since the Checking Officers are collecting the fine, the drivers of the vehicles have no option except to pay the fine under threat by such officers that the vehicles would be impounded. The petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in P. Ratnakar Rao v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1996 SC 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 in charge of the vehicle, the offences W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 106 charged by the Checking Officers relate to permit conditions, which would affect the permit holder.
12.11. In Punitha's case, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State it was contended that, the Government had issued notification dated 11.01.2000, 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. The nature of offence and the revised amount of compounding fee were also notified in the said Government Order. 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 the Government notification dated 11.01.2000 and also to enhance the amount of compounding fee/spot fine on the vehicles entering into the States of Tamil Nadu from other States. In order to curtail tax evasion and misuse of permits of the vehicles, the Government had amended the delegation of powers by G.O.(Ms.)No.1243/Home W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 107 (Transport VII) dated 14.12.2001, based on the suggestion made by the Transport Commissioner, whereby 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. Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act 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, 190(2), 192, 194, 196 and 198 of the said Act. Though the offences relating to the said Sections may seem to relate to permit holders; in fact, the drivers or the person in charge of the vehicles are responsible for the said offences. Since the drivers and the person in charge of the vehicles are mostly based in the State of Karnataka, it is difficult to summon them to enquire and to prosecute, if found necessary. Therefore, the Government notification dated 14.12.2001 under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been issued and the compounding fees mentioned in the notification are being collected by the officials of the Transport Department. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State, it was W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 108 contended further that, the vehicles belonging to the writ petitioner are plying in the State of Tamil Nadu by virtue of the permit issued by the State Transport Authority, Karnataka, under sub-section (9) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 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 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Only the offences committed relating to the drivers or the person in charge of the vehicles are compounded under Section 200 of the Act. Under Section 207 of the Act, the officers authorised by the State Government have 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.
12.12. In Punitha's case, after considering the rival contentions, the learned Judge of the Madras High Court held that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 109 grant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. Government Order dated 14.12.2001 has been issued only with the intention of alleviating the hardship that the drivers and the person in charge of their vehicles may face in the course of the implementation of the various sections of the MV Act. 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 in charge of the vehicles. 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 power or the source of such power is ultra vires and unsustainable in the eye of law. Paragraphs 9 to 12 of the judgment read thus;
"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 W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 110 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 W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 111 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 counsel appearing for the parties concerned, this Court W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 112 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. 20183 of 2004 is also dismissed. No costs." (underline supplied) 12.13. Section 200 of the MV Act empowers the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 113 authorised officer to compound the offences punishable under the provisions enumerated in sub-section (1) thereof. The officer is empowered either before or after the institution of the proceedings for prosecution, to compound such an offence for such amount as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify in this behalf. It is conditional upon the willingness of the offender to have the offences compounded. It may also be done before the institution of the prosecution case. In the event of the offender willing to have the offence compounded, the authorised officer gets jurisdiction and authority to compound the offence and call upon the offender 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 offender either to accept compounding of the offence or to face the prosecution in the appropriate court.
12.14. As already noticed, an offence punishable under Section 192A of the MV Act was not compoundable till Section 200 of the said Act was substituted by Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, with effect from 01.09.2019.W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 114
In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 200, the State Government has to notify the officers or authorities authorised to compound the offence punishable under Section 192A and also the compounding fee. Moreover, compounding of an offence is conditional upon the willingness of the offender to have the same compounded either before or after institution of the proceedings for prosecution. Therefore, any check reports in respect of the vehicles owned by the petitioners, which have already closed on payment of compounding fee, for an offence punishable under Section 192A of the MV Act, have to be re-
opened and the fee so collected shall be returned. Further proceedings in all check reports will have to be taken by the appropriate authority, in accordance with law, with notice to the respective offenders, and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, taking note of the law laid down in this decision.
13. Section 206 of the MV Act - Power to impound documents - Power of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors:-
13.1. As per sub-section (1) of Section 206, any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 115 Government may, if he has reason to believe that any identification mark carried on a motor vehicle or any licence, permit, certificate of registration, certificate of insurance or other document produced to him by the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle is a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 seize the mark or document and call upon the driver or owner of the vehicle to account for his possession of or the presence in the vehicle of such mark or document. As per sub-section (2) of Section 206, any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle who is charged with any offence under this Act may abscond or otherwise avoid the service of a summons, seize any licence held by such driver and forward it to the court taking cognizance of the offence and the said court shall on the first appearance of such driver before it, return the licence to him in exchange for the temporary acknowledgment given under sub-section (3).
13.2. Sub-section (4) of Section 206 of the MV Act, inserted by Section 88 of the of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, a police officer or other person W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 116 authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall, if he has reason to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle has committed an offence under any of Section 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, 194C, 194D, or 194E, seize the driving licence held by such driver and forward it to the licensing authority for disqualification or revocation proceedings under Section 19. As per the proviso to sub-section (4), the person seizing the licence shall give to the person surrendering the licence a temporary acknowledgment therefor, but such acknowledgment shall not authorise the holder to drive until the licence has been returned to him.
13.3. As per sub-section (1) of Section 213 of the MV Act, the State Government may, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act, establish a Motor Vehicles Department and appoint as officers thereof such persons as it think fit. As per sub-section (3) of Section 213, the State Government may make rules to regulate the discharge by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power to prescribe the uniform to be worn by them, the authorities to which they shall be subordinate, the duties W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 117 to be performed by them, the powers (including the powers exercisable by police officers under this Act) to be exercised by them, and the conditions governing the exercise of such powers. As per sub-section (5) of Section 213, in addition to the powers that may be conferred on any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department under sub-section (3), such officer as may be empowered by the State Government in this behalf shall also have the powers enumerated in clauses (a) and (f) thereof.
13.4. As per Rule 228 of the KMV Rules, permit shall be produced on demand at any reasonable time by the Secretaries of the State or Regional Transport Authorities, officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector or Police Officers not below the rank of Sub Inspector. As per the proviso to Rule 228, if a permit is not at the time in possession of the person to whom demand is made, it shall be sufficient compliance with this rule if such person produces it within ten days at any police station in the State which he specifies to the officer. As per Rule 229, which deals with inspecting authority for permit, Magistrates, officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 118 below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector and Police Officers in uniform not below the rank of Sub Inspector may mount any transport vehicle for the purpose of inspecting the permit.
13.5. Rule 231 of the KMV Rules deals with inspection of public service vehicles. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 231, any of the persons enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of the said sub-
rule may, at any time when a public service vehicle is in a public place call upon the driver of the vehicle to stop the vehicle and keep it at rest for such time as may be necessary to enable him to make reasonable examination of the number of passengers and other contents of the vehicle so as to satisfy himself that the provisions of the Act and of these rules and the provisions and conditions of the permit in respect of the vehicle are being complied with. As per clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 231, any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector is authorised to exercise the powers under the said Rule.
13.6. Rule 348 of the KMV Rules deals with production of certificate of registration and fitness on demand. As per Rule 348, Magistrates, officers of the Motor Vehicles Department W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 119 not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector and Police Officers in uniform not below the rank of Sub Inspector are authorised to demand the production of the certificate of registration and the certificate of insurance of any vehicle and where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, also the certificate of fitness and the permit. Rule 351 of the KMV Rules deals with officers empowered to seize vehicles and documents. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 351, Magistrates, Police officers in uniform not below the rank of Sub Inspector, officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector are authorised to; (a) seize any identification mark carried on, or any document produced by the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle under the provisions of Section 206 of the Act; and (b) seize, detain and arrange for the temporary safe custody of motor vehicle under the provisions of Section 207 of the Act.
13.7. The provisions under the MV Act and the KMV Rules referred to above would make it explicitly clear that the power under Section 206 of the Act to impound document can be exercised by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 120
14. Section 207 of the MV Act - Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration, permit, etc. - Power of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors:-
14.1. As per sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the MV Act, any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle.
14.2. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the MV Act, where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration of the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 121 vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgment in respect thereof.
As per sub-section (2) of Section 207, where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose.
14.3. In Nirmala Jagdishchandra Kabra v. Transport Commissioner [(1997) 9 SCC 227] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the Motor Vehicle Inspector had imposed penalty of Rs.1000/- for violation of the conditions of the contract carriage permit. It was found that the vehicle was being used as stage carriage in violation of the breach of the conditions of the permit inasmuch as petitioner was collecting individuals fares at the rate of Rs.1.60 per passenger and was not using the vehicle as a tourist vehicle hired to one group party. The petitioner filed writ petition before Gujarat High Court seeking the relief as under;
W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 122
"To allow this petition and to issue appropriate writ, direction and order holding and declaring that the respondent authorities have no legal right or power or authority to either seize or detain the petitioner's vehicles shown at Annexure A to this petition in purported exercise of power under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 solely on the allegation of collection of individual fare from the passengers."
The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench refused to grant the relief in the face of sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with proviso thereto. After quoting the provisions under Section 207 of the Act, the Apex Court held that there is a power for compounding the offence provided in Section 206 [sic: Section 200] of the Act. In the light of sub-section (1) of Section 207, if the officer authorised in that behalf is of the opinion that the vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of any of the aforesaid provisions of the Act (referred to in Section 207) or conditions of the permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle is used, he may seize and detain the vehicle or compound the offence. The statutory power given to the authorised officer under Section 207 is to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 123 mandamus sought for cannot be issued, as referred to earlier. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said decision read thus;
"2. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench refused to grant the relief in the face of Section 207(1) read with proviso thereto, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the "Act"). Section 207 of the Act postulates the power to detain vehicle used without certificate of registration permit, etc. Sub-section (1) provides thus :
"Any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions to Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle."
The proviso postulates thus:
"provided that where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and shall issue an W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 124 acknowledgment in respect thereof."
3. There is a power for compounding the offence provided in Section 206 [sic: Section 200] of the Act. In the light of sub-section (1) of Section 207, if the officer authorised in that behalf is of the opinion that the vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of any of the aforesaid provisions of the Act or conditions of the permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle is used, he may seize and detain the vehicle or compound the offence. The statutory power given to the authorised officer under Section 207 is to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the mandamus sought for cannot be issued, as referred to earlier."
(underline supplied) 14.4. As already noticed, as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 351, Magistrates, Police officers in uniform not below the rank of Sub Inspector, officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector are authorised to; (a) seize any identification mark carried on, or any document produced by the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle under the provisions of Section 206 of the Act; and (b) seize, detain and arrange for the temporary safe custody of motor vehicle under the provisions of Section 207 of the Act.
W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 125
14.5. The provisions under the MV Act and the KMV Rules referred to above would make it explicitly clear that the power under Section 207 of the Act to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration, permit, etc. can be exercised by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.
14.6. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Nanded-Parbhani Z.L.B.M.V. Operator Sangh [(2000) 2 SCC 69] the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that under the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 207 of the MV Act, the police officer or the authorised officer is not empowered to detain a transport vehicle for each and every violation of the conditions of permit.
14.7. In Nanded-Parbhani Z.L.B.M.V. Operator Sangh's case, the question that came up for consideration before the Apex Court was whether under sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the MV Act the appropriate authority can detain a transport vehicle used in contravention of the conditions of permit relating to the number of passengers which could be carried in that vehicle. The Apex Court held that, under the provisions of Section 207 of the MV Act the police officer would W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 126 be authorised to detain a vehicle, if he has reason to believe that the vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required under sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used. The condition of permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle could be used if contravened, would only authorise the police officer to detain the vehicle and not on each and every condition of permit being violated or contravened. It was contended by the learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra that the expression 'purpose for which the vehicle may be used' could be construed to mean that when the vehicle is found to be carrying passengers more than the number prescribed in the permit, the purpose of user is otherwise. Repelling the said contention, the Apex Court held that the purpose would only refer to a contingency when a vehicle having a permit of 'stage carriage' is used as a 'contract carriage' or 'vice versa'; or where a vehicle having a permit for 'stage carriage' or 'contract carriage' is used as a W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 127 'goods vehicle' and vice versa. But carrying passengers more than the number specified in the permit will not be a violation of the purpose for which the permit is granted. If the Legislature really wanted to confer power of detention on the police officer for violation of any condition of the permit, then there would not have been the necessity of adding the expression 'relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used'. The user of the aforesaid expression cannot be ignored nor can it be said to be a tautology.
14.8. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that, as per Section 194A of the MV Act, inserted by Section 79 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 [with effect from 01.09.2019], which deals with carriage of excess passengers, whoever drives a transport vehicle or causes or allows a transport vehicle to be driven while carrying more passengers than is authorised in the registration certificate of such transport vehicle or the permit conditions applicable to such transport vehicle shall be punishable with a fine of two hundred rupees per excess passenger. As per proviso to Section 194A, such transport vehicle shall not be allowed to W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 128 move before the excess passengers are off-loaded and an alternative transport is arranged for such passengers.
14.9. As held by the Apex Court in Nirmala Jagdishchandra Kabra's case, in the light of sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the MV Act, if the officer authorised in that behalf is of the opinion that the vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of the said Act referred to therein or conditions of the permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle is used, he may seize and detain the vehicle or compound the offence. The statutory power given to the authorised officer under Section 207 is to ensure compliance of the provisions of the MV Act. In Nanded-Parbhani Z.L.B.M.V. Operator Sangh's case, the Apex Court reiterated that, when a vehicle having a permit of 'stage carriage' is used as a 'contract carriage' or vice versa; or where a vehicle having a permit for 'stage carriage' or 'contract carriage' is used as a 'goods vehicle' and vice versa it would authorise the police officer to detain the vehicle.
15. Section 86 - Cancellation and suspension of permits:-
W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 129
15.1. Section 86 of the MV Act deals with cancellation and suspension of permits. As per sub-section (1) of Section 86, the Transport Authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit on the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1). Under clause (a), the Transport Authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit on the breach of any condition specified in Section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit, and under clause (b), if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit. Sub-section (7) of Section 86 deals with tourist permit granted under sub-section (9) of Section 88 of the MV Act. Sub-section (7) of Section 86 provides that, in relation to a permit referred to in sub-section (9) of Section 88, the powers exercisable under sub-section (1) (other than the power to cancel a permit) by the Transport Authority which granted the permit, may be exercised by any Transport Authority and any authority or persons to whom power in this behalf has been delegated under sub-section (5) of Section 68, as if the said permit was a permit granted by any such W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 130 authority or persons.
15.2. As per sub-section (5) of Section 68 of the MV Act, the State Transport Authority and any Regional Transport Authority, if authorised in this behalf by rules made under Section 96, may delegate such of its powers and functions to such authority or person subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions, as may be prescribed by the said rules. The delegation of power contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 68 is delegation of such powers and functions of the State Transport Authority and any Regional Transport Authority to such authority or person subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed in the rules made in this behalf under Section 96 of the MV Act.
15.3. In view of the provisions under Section 86 of the MV Act, the Transport Authority which granted a 'contract carriage' permit is authorised to cancel the permit or suspend it for such period as it thinks fit on the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1). Under clause (a), the Transport Authority which granted a 'contract carriage' permit is authorised to cancel the permit or suspend it for such period as it thinks fit on the breach of any condition specified in W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 131 Section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit. Under clause (b), the said Authority is authorised to cancel the permit or suspend it for such period as it thinks fit if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit.
16. Inspection of Public Service Vehicles by the officials of the Motor Vehicles Department in State of Kerala:-
16.1. As already noticed hereinbefore, the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Motor Vehicle Inspector have the power to impound documents under Section 206 of the MV Act and also to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration, permit, etc. under Section 207 of the said Act, in view of the provisions under Rules 228, 229, 231, 348, 351, etc. of the KMV Rules, which are made in exercise of the rule making power of the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 213 of the MV Act. As per the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 192A of the MV Act, whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 132 conditions of permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, shall be liable to be punished as provided in sub-section (1).
When any contravention of the conditions of permit relating to the purpose for which the vehicle may be used is noticed, it is for the officers authorised in this regard, including the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect the vehicle and collect necessary materials to initiate prosecution against the offender. As per sub-section (1) of Section 231 of the KMV Rules, the authorised officer is entitled to call upon the driver of a public service vehicle to stop the vehicle and keep it at rest for such time as may be necessary to enable him to make reasonable examination of the number of passengers and other contents of the vehicle so as to satisfy himself the provisions of the MV Act and the Rules made thereunder and also the provisions and conditions of the permit in respect of that vehicle are being complied with.
16.2. In Ajithkumar v. Director General of Police [2003 (1) KLT 671], this Court noticed direction No.17/2002 dated 17.10.2002 issued by the Director General of Police for W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 133 safeguarding the convenience and interest of the travelling public as well as the operators at the time of inspection of public service vehicles. The Transport Commissioner, Kerala, has also issued Circular No.8/2010 dated 30.09.2010 in this regard. Therefore, the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department shall ensure that the inspection of public service vehicles are conducted causing least inconvenience to the travelling public and also the operators.
17. Alleging 'stage carriage' operation in violation of the conditions of permit, various check reports have already been issued in respect of the vehicles owned by the petitioners. The question as to whether such vehicles were operated in violation of the conditions of permit is a disputed question of fact, which has to be ascertained by the fact finding authority. It is for the petitioners to submit (if not already submitted) objections/ explanations to the respective check reports, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and thereafter the competent authority shall consider those objections/explanations and take a decision as to the further course to be taken in the matter. During that exercise the compounding fee already paid in respect of check reports W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 134 relating to offence punishable under Section 192A of the MV Act shall be refunded to the respective parties, after reopening all those check reports, and further proceedings in those check reports shall be initiated against the respective offenders, in accordance with law.
18. As already noticed, the officials in the Motor Vehicles Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector have ample power to conduct inspection of the vehicles, impound documents and also to detain vehicles in appropriate cases, in exercise of their powers under the provisions referred to hereinbefore. In such circumstances, such officers cannot be interdicted from exercising their statutory powers, by the issuance of a writ of mandamus; as no mandamus can be issued restraining a statutory authority from discharging its function under the Statute. The reliefs sought for in this regard in this writ petition are declined; however it is made clear that the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department shall ensure that the inspection of public service vehicles are conducted causing least inconvenience to the travelling public and also the operators.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of by directing W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 135 the appropriate authority to take further proceedings in the check reports issued in respect of the vehicles in question, taking note of the directions contained hereinbefore and also the law laid down as above.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE yd W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 136 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-
42/L-3223 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-
42/L-5337 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-
09/AR-789 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-
09/AR-879 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-
09/AF-3499 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-
11/D-3493 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-
09/V-1999 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 137
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-
09/AF-4105 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-
09/AF-3967 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-
16/M-6045 IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-
16/M-5927 IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 24/04/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/V-1999 ISSUED BY THE AMVI (RTO ENFORCEMENT), KOTTARAKKARA IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 30/04/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-42/L-3223 ISSUED BY THE AMVI, KOLLAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 28/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-42/L-5337 ISSUED BY THE AMVI (RTO ENFORCEMENT), ALAPPUZHA IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 05/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-42/L-5337 ISSUED BY THE AMVI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 138 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 29/04/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-42/L-5337 ISSUED BY THE AMVI, THRISSUR IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 15/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-42/L-5337 ISSUED BY THE AMVI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 15/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-789 ISSUED BY THE AMVI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 09/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-789 ISSUED BY THE AMVI (RTO ENFORCEMENT) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 28/04/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-789 ISSUED BY THE AMVI PALAKKAD IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 03/06/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-789 ISSUED BY THE AMVI KOLLAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 05/06/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-789 ISSUED BY THE MVI (RTO ENFORCEMENT) KOLLAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 25/04/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-879 ISSUED BY THE AMVI KODUNGALLUR IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 139 EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 11/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-879 ISSUED BY THE AMVI KOLLAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 17/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-879 ISSUED BY THE MVI (RTO ENFORCEMENT) KARUNAGAPPALLY IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 22/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-879 ISSUED BY THE MVI KOLLAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 19/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-879 ISSUED BY THE AMVI KOLLAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 30/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-879 ISSUED BY THE AMVI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 05/06/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-879 ISSUED BY THE AMVI ERNAKULAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 02/06/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-879 ISSUED BY THE AMVI KOTTARAKKARA IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 01/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AR-879 ISSUED BY THE AMVI KOLLAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 140 EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 31/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AF-3499 ISSUED BY THE AMVI KOTTARAKKARA IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED NIL RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AF-4105 ISSUED BY THE AMVI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P34 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 31/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-09/AF-3967 ISSUED BY THE AMVI (RTO ENFORCEMENT) KOTTARAKKARA IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P35 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 28/04/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-16/M-6045 ISSUED BY THE MVI PALAKKAD IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P36 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 17/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-16/M-6045 ISSUED BY THE MVI (RTO ENFORCEMENT) KOLLAM IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P37 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 19/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-16/M-6045 ISSUED BY THE MVI (RTO ENFORCEMENT) ERNAKULAM IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P38 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 23/05/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-16/M-6045 ISSUED BY THE AMVI KAVANAD IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P39 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 01/06/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-16/M-6045 ISSUED BY THE AMVI KOLLAM IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER W.P.(C)No.13732/2019 141 EXHIBIT P40 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 27/04/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-16/M-5927 ISSUED BY THE AMVI (RTO ENFORCEMENT) KOLLAM IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD PETITIONER EXHIBIT P41 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 28/04/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-16/M-5927 ISSUED BY THE AMVI (RTO ENFORCEMENT) PALAKKAD IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD PETITIONER EXHIBIT P42 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET / CHECK REPORT DATED 04/06/2019 RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-16/M-5927 ISSUED BY THE AMVI (RTO ENFORCEMENT) KOLLAM IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD PETITIONER RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE