A. K. MATHUR, C. J.

( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of S. 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') as ultra vires of the Constitution to the extent of authorising the State Government to fix the amount of the composition fees and to authorise any other officer subordinate to the permit granting authority for compounding the offence under S. 86 of the Act and also being violative of Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioners 1 to 5 hold a regular All India Tourist Permit in respect of their vehicle No. M. P.- M. K. Q. 2644 and petitioners 6 to 10 are also holders of All India Tourist Permit for their vehicles. It is alleged that Tourist Vehicles are being checked up by subordinate officers of Transport and Police Departments and fine is recovered under threat of seizure of the vehicles on the spot notwithstanding the pleas that the vehicles are covered by All India Permit. It is submitted that the motor vehicles have been seized on the false pretext and owners of the motor vehicles are being coerced to submit for compromise and pay composition fee.

( 3 ) THE State Govt. has issued a circular in exercise of its powers conferred under S. 200 (1) of the Act, whereby they have laid down the fee for compounding. In case of breach of condition of permit under S. 192-A of the Act, all powers have been conferred on the Sub-Inspectors of Police of Traffic Branch and they can compound the breaches up to the extent of Rs. 1,000. 00; for light motor vehicles, Rs. 200. 00, for medium passenger vehicles Rs. 500. 00 and for heavy motor vehicles Rs. 1,000. 00. It is this Notification and coercive compounding of the breaches that have been sought to be challenged by the petitioners in this petition and, therefore, they have challenged the validity of S. 200 of the Act.

( 4 ) SUFFICE it to say that so far as provision of S. 200 of the Act is concerned, it cannot be said to be ultra vires of S. 86 of the Act. Section 86 of the Act lays down the power of cancellation and suspension of permit and S. 200 of the Act confers power on the State Govt. that it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the various compounding fees for the breaches. In that connection, the State Govt. has issued a notification laying down the power of compounding of the breaches of the conditions of the permit as well as breaches under other provisions of the Act. It also lays down the maximum fee for such compounding. Therefore, so far as the validity of the provision of S. 86 of the Act is concerned, we do not find that the provision is violative of Arts. 19 (1) (g) and 14 of the Constitution.

( 5 ) IN this connection, it may be mentioned that a similar provision of the Act came up for consideration under S. 129-A of the Act in case of Transport Commr. , Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sardar Ali, AIR 1983 SC 1225, and the provision has already been upheld by Hon. the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to dilate on the question of validity as the same has already been upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned case.

( 6 ) THE only check which can be put on the arbitrary and unquestioned exercise of power by the subordinate authority is that as and when such breaches come to the notice of the authorities and any of the bus operator contests the matter that he is not guilty of breach of the condition of the Act and wants to contest the dispute, then in that case, the vehicle should not be seized, because under the proviso to S. 207 (1) of the Act, the power is given to the authorities is that instead of seizing the vehicle, they can seize the registration certificate.

( 7 ) THEREFORE, the Transport Commissioner, Gwalior or the State Govt. should issue a circular to all such authorities that as and when they seize the vehicle and any of the persons contests the matter that he is not guilty of any breach of the cond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document