Judgment

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.

1. In the above batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Vehicle Checking Reports issued by the authorities under Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, they have heard together and are disposed of by this common order. The fact leading to issuance of Vehicle Checking Reports against the owner/driver/conductor is that they have violated the conditions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules framed thereunder, in that there was want of Taxation, Permit, Fitness Certificate, Registration Certificate, Certificate from the Pollution Control Board, over-loading, unauthorized persons driving the vehicle, driving vehicles in contravention of Sections 3 or 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, driving at excessive speed and driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. It is appropriate to mention here that for contravention of provisions of the M.V. Act and Rules framed there under, penalty has been prescribed under Chapter-XIII of the M.V. Act and procedure has also been envisaged under the said Act to work out its remedy. But instead of complying the same, the owners/drivers/conductors have straightaway approached this Court invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India without availing the statutory remedies available under the said Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions state that by approaching this Court they have got efficacious remedy. Therefore, by-passing forum available under the provision of M.V. Act and Rules framed thereunder, they have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. It is further stated that the transport authorities having not acted in consonance with the provisions of law, finding no other way, they have approached this Court. In support of such contention, they have placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in P. Ratnakar Rao and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1996 SC 2523 and also a unreported order of this Court in Shiv Shankar Agrawal v. Regional Transport Officer and others passed in O.J.C. 485 of 1995 disposed of on 16.03.1995.

3. Mr. J. Pal, learned standing counsel appearing for the Transport Department has vehemently objected to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and stated that when a complete mechanism is available under the statute, namely, Motor. Vehicles Act and Rules framed thereunder, there is no valid or justifiable reason available to the petitioners for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing these writ petitions. Apart from the same, he has stated that to streamline the procedure and deviate the difficulties, Government has considered the situation and has issued a circular bearing No. 3 of 2018 dated 9.12.2013 imparting certain instruction/proposing the steps to be taken by the Motor Vehicle Department Officers in consonance with the provisions of law proposed to take steps for which it can benefit. Apart from that in exercise of power conferred under section 200 of M.V. Act, Government in the Transport Department has issued a Notification published in the official Gazette bearing No. 1151 dated 29.09.1995, empowering various authorities to compound the offences, in the event, the aggrieved persons are not willing to compound the offences, he can then and there make an application to send the record to the court. Therefore, he argued that the writ petitions should be dismissed as alternative remedy is available under the statute and the petitioners must avail the benefit of the circular issued by the Transport Department for their future cause of action.

4. Having regard to the above fact and circumstances and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the following questions arise