LAWS(KAR)-1987-10-9

CHANDRAMOHAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER DHARWAR

Decided On October 26, 1987
CHANDRAMOHAN Appellant
V/S
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, DHARWAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitutfon, the petitioner has sought for quashing the endorsement bearing No.DSA.II.ZRM 2955/87-88, issued by the respondent informing the petitioner that "there is no provision to compound the offence under Section 33(1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939" (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and further directing the petitioner to surrender the valid documents of the vehicle No.ZRM 2955 (Re- assigned as CAK 2122) immediately.

(2.) The registration certificate of the vehicle in question was suspended by the respondent on 19-6-1986, for a period of 4 months and again on 18-11-1986, for a period of 60 days under Section 33(l)(b) of the Act, for using the vehicle without permit. .The petitioner preferred writ Petition Nos. 14800 & 14801 of 1987, before this Court, challenging the validity of those orders, but ultimately, withdrew the Writ Petitions on 7th October, 1987, with liberty to seek compounding of the violations in question if permissible in law. The order passed in W.P.NOS. 14800 & 14801 of 1987, on 7th October, 1987, reads thus : Sri. C. Narasimhachar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the petitions reserving liberty to him to seek compounding of the violations considered in Annexures 'C' and 'D' dated .19-6-1986 and 18-11-1986 respectively. The submission is placed on record. 2). Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek compounding of the violations in question, if permissible in law. 3). Sri. P.R. Ramesh, learned High Court Government Pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf of respondent in six weeks.

(3.) After withdrawing the aforesaid Writ Petitions, the petitioner sought for compounding of the same. It is this request of the petitioner that has been rejected by the respondent on the ground that there is no Provision in the Act to permit the petitioner to compound the same.