Authorities cannot compel vehicle owners to pay compounding fees for clearance when no prosecution is initiated, preserving their right to defend against potential charges.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P4 series of notices, and further to issue direction commanding the 1st respondent to forthwith issue a 'clearance certificate' as sought for by the 1st petitioner so as to enable the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P3 application endorsing the transfer of ownership of the vehicle covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration, from the name of the 1st petitioner to the name of the 2nd petitioner without insisting on remittance of the 'compounding fee' stipulated in Ext.P4 series of notices. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. The 1st petitioner is the registered owner of a Heavy Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KL-40/J-7545, evident from Ext.P1 certificate of registration, having a valid permit uptil 23.03.2019. On 23.03.2017, the 1st petitioner sold the vehicle in question to the 2nd petitioner herein. Accordingly, notice of transfer of ownership in Form No.29 and Report of Transfer of ownership in Form No.30, as mandated under Sec. 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act'] were duly filled up and delivered to the 2nd petitioner for submitting the same before the 2nd respondent herein, i.e. the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the 2nd petitioner resides. On the very same day, the 1st petitioner surrendered Ext.P2 permit for cancellation under Rule 183 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Rule 183 stipulates that the holder of a permit may at any time surrender it to any Transport Authority, and thereupon the permit shall be deemed to have been cancelled with effect from the date of such surrender.

3. On 29.03.2017, when the 1st petitioner approached the office of the 1st respondent for retrieving the original of Ext.P1 certificate of registration and also for a 'clearance certificate' from the 1st respondent to facilitate the endorsement of transfer of ownership by the 2nd respondent on Ext.P3 applications, petitioner was served with seven separate notices in 'Proforma II', all bearing the date 23.03.2017, the date on which Ext.P2 permit was surrendered for cancellation. As per Ext.P4 series of notices, petitioner is called upon to compound the alleged offences under Sec.86(5) of the MV Act, 1988. According to the petitioners, such an insistence cannot be made by the statutory authority. That apart, it is submitted that, Rule 183 enables the holder of the permit to surrender the permit for cancellation at any time and on such surrender, the permit shall be deemed to have been cancelled with effect from the date of such surrender. That apart, it is contended that, no proceedings either prosecution or departmental have been initiated or satisfactorily concluded against the petitioners on the basis of check reports referred to in Ext.P4 series of notices. So also, it is stated that the petitioner has not accepted any offer of composition either under Sec.200 or under Sec.86(5) of the MV Act, 1988. Therefore, there is no basis in contending that any amount is due from the petitioners by way of fine or penalty.

4. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised in the writ petition. Apart from other contentions, it is stated that the vehicle in question is a heavy goods vehicle having GVW 25000 Kgs. and issued with a permit to carry 13635 Kgs. only as payload. The vehicle was intercepted by the officials of Motor Vehicles Department and booked for the offence of carrying excess load than permitted, violating Sec.113(3)(b) of MV Act, 1988, and charge memos are already issued to the petitioner for each and every check report, directing him to compound the offence under Sec.194 of the Act. That apart, it is contended that, all the check reports, except the one on 10.03.2015 are charged against carrying overload of more than 9 tonnes apart from the permitted pay load of 13 tonnes. In one case, more than 18 tonnes of overloa