IMPORTANT POINTS
The compounding fee already paid in respect of check reports 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.

JUDGMENT :

Since common issues are raised, these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. W.P.(C)No.13327 of 2019:- The petitioner is a tourist bus operator in the State of Karnataka, who has been issued with Ext.P1 tourist permit under sub-section (9) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the MV Act'), read with Rules 64 and 66 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'the Kar.MV Rules'), in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-59/1693, with a seating capacity of 52+2 in all, valid throughout India, for the period from 22.04.2019 to 21.04.2024, subject to the conditions enumerated in that permit issued in Form No.49, in addition to the conditions specified under Section 84 and sub-section (11) of Section 88 of the MV Act. The document marked as Ext.P2 is an authorisation dated 22.04.2019 issued in Form No.47, under sub-rule (2) of Rule 83 and sub-rule (2) of Rule 87 of the Kar.MV Rules, in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-59/1693, for the period from 22.04.2019 to 21.04.2020.

2.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a declaration that the respondents and their subordinate officers are not entitled in law to detain the petitioner's vehicles for unreasonable time, under the guise of checking or to insist remittance of compounding fee without providing opportunity to the petitioner to contest the check report and have it adjudicated in accordance with law. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents and their subordinate officers not to detain the petitioner's vehicle having valid tourist permit under the guise of checking and not to insist remittance of compounding fee without providing opportunity to the petitioner to contest the check report and have it adjudicated in accordance with law.

2.2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, among other vehicles, about 15 vehicles owned by the petitioner have been issued with tourist permits under sub-section (9) of Section 88 of the MV Act by the Karnataka State Transport Authority. These vehicles are allowed to operate and are conducting operation based on agreements entered into by the petitioner with various approved travel agencies for the convenience of troops arranged by such agencies. When these vehicles are entering the State of Kerala, the officials under the control of the 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner and respondents 2 to 11 Regional Transport Officers are detaining the vehicles for hours with passengers and tourists in such vehicles causing inconvenience and hardship to such passengers. Alleging violation of the conditions of permit, check reports are prepared and insisted the driver and other crew of the vehicle to sign those check reports and remit the compounding fee, failing which the vehicles will not be allowed to proceed further. On 25.04.2019 the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.KA-59/1693 was inspected at 3.00 pm, at Walayar; at 6.30 pm, at Ernakulam; and at 7.35 pm, at Thiruvalla and the crew was compelled to remit the compounding fee to proceed with the passengers. On 03.05.2019, when the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01/AG-5295 was proceeding from Kottarakkara to Bangalore, it was checked at Alappuzha, at 9.15 pm, alleging violation of the conditions of permit and detained for more than 4 hours. There where 40 passengers in that vehicle including women and children. When lady passengers took serious objections the vehicle was allowed to proceed further, after the issuance of Ext.P3 check report.

2.3. On 07.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission before Vacation Bench, the matter was adjourned to 14.05.2019 for consideration. On that day, the matter was adjourned after vacation for consideration.

2.4. On 27.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner s