ORDER :

Alpesh Y. Kogje, J.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to declare the action of respondent authority in detaining the vehicle for breach of Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "the Act") and compelling the petitioner to compound the offence under Section 200 of the Act to pay the compounding fine.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is permitted to ply a vehicle as a contract carriage, whereas in the intervening night on 19/20.04.2019, the vehicle was intercepted and was found with passengers which did not belong to one group and the driver had not produced any passengers list and hence, prima-facie found that vehicle was being used as Stage Carriage. Such use being in contravention to Section 66 of the Act which provides for permits and therefore, was liable for action under Section 192-A of the Act. It is submitted that on the same day, after having found the petitioner liable for action under Section 192-A of the Act, had proceeded to compound the offence under Section 200 of the Act. While compounding, the petitioner was made to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/-. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Section 200 of the Act which provides for compounding of certain offences does not include Section 192-A of the Act and therefore, action of compounding the offence under 192-A of the Act contemplated against the petitioner ought not to have been compounded.

2.1. Learned advocate relies upon the judgment in the case of Ramjibhai Dayarambhai Joshi v/s. State of Gujarat and another, reported in 1997 (1) GLH 992 to submit that issue is no more res-integra considering the ratio laid down in para-7B.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposes the petition on the ground that the petitioner had voluntarily paid the amount and after voluntary payment only, the departmental action was initiated against the petitioner and the fine of Rs. 2000/- was accepted. It submitted that it is only after a period of two months on such compounding, that the petitioner has filed the present petition and therefore, filing of the petition is an afterthought. It is submitted that by the late challenge to the action, the petitioner was escaped from both criminal liability as well as liability under the departmental proceedings.

4. Learned AGP draws attention of this Court to Section 86 of the Act to contend that where a case is cancellation or suspension of permits, Sub-section 5 of Section 86 provides for department to receive certain money in lieu of cancellation or suspension and it is under this that the amount of Rs. 2,000/- is received.

5. This Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The relevant portion of the inspection report dated 20.04.2015 reads as under:-

"M.V. Carrying 35........................................Passengers from .......................... To ................ 400 ................. with journey fare of Rs. ......................... per passengers. All passengers are not in one group and Driver has not produced passenger list. MV used as a Stage carriage. Hence breach of permit condition."

"C.F. Recovered

2,000/-

Two thousand only."

6. Sections 2(7), 2(40), 66, 192-A and 200 of the Act read as under;-

"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 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) 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 co