ANIL K.NARENDRAN
P. K. Santhosh, S/o. Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department – Respondent
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 bearing registration No.KL-16/M-6045; and the 3rd petitioner is the registered owner of a contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-16/M-5
Brijendra Kumar Chaudhari v. State of U.P.
KSRTC v. State Transport Authority
Maharashtra v. Nanded-Parbhani Z.L.B.M.V. Operator Sangh
N. Krishnasami Chetty v. The Licensing Officer
Nirmala Jagdishchandra Kabra v. Transport Commissioner
P. Ratnakar Rao v. Govt. of A.P.
Punitha N. v. State of T. N. and others
Roshan Lal Gautham v. State of U.P.
State of A.P. v. Noorulla Khan
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.