T.S.THAKUR
PANDIT RAMACHANDRA HARIHAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
( 1 ) THE grievance of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions relates to the power of the respondent motor vehicle authorities to levy and recover composition fee from the petitioners who are tourist and contract carriage operators, as also the procedure which ought to be followed by them while seizing the vehicles under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioners contend that the authorities under the Act, have no jurisdiction to impose or recover any composition fee, for an offence punishable under Section 192-a of the act inserted by act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14-11-1994; for the reason that Section 200 as amended by the act aforesaid does not permit composition of any such offence. Check reports and composition made after the 14th of november, 1994, have therefore been called in question inter alia on the ground that it is illegal and opposed to public policy to compound an offence not legally compoundable.
( 2 ) SECTIONS 192-a and 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as they stand after 14-11-1994, may be reproduced at this stage:"section 192-a. (1) whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used i
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH V CHANDRAPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
GANDHINAGAR MOTOR TRANSPORT SOCIETY V STATE OF BOMBAY
M/S. PANNALAL BINJRAJ AND OTHERS V UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
C.R. GOWDA V MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND OTHERS
ASHUTOSH SWAIN AND OTHERS V STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.