S K SHARMA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In W.P.9908/88 rule has already been issued. In other writ petitions rule has not been issued As in all these writ petitions the same resolution passed by the respondent delegating its power is challenged, rule is issued in the remaining writ petitions and all the petitions are heard for final disposal on consent of both sides.

(2.) The respondent in exercise of its power under sub-section(5) of Section 44 r/w Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1930 (herein after referred to as the Act) and Rule 96(x) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), has passed the impugned resolution delegating its power to compound the offence. The said resolution reads thus : SI.No.47. Sub.No.772/87-88. To fix the quantum of penalty and such other action to be taken u/'s 60 of M.V.Act, 1939 against the owner of the Vehicle being used under special permit in violation of permit conditions. RESOLUTION : There are 264 Heavy Passenger Vehicles in addition to some taxics running under Special permits in Bangalore Region. This Authority has delegated the powers of grant of special permits to the Secretary, RTA, for speedy disposel since it is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in R.L. Doddamani v RTA, Bijapur reported in KLJ 1982, page 439 that in the scheme of the act applications under Section 63(6) of the Act should receive priority in the matter of disposal and should be disposed of well before the period for which the Special permits sought for commences. Failing to do so would be to defeat the very purpose for which the provision was made in the Act. Considerable number of check reports are received, wherein offences of use of vehicles covered under Special permits being used as stage carriages for carrying passengers not included in the Contract by collecting individual fares from each passengers for one side journey, picking up and setting down passengers not included in the contract on the line of the route, using the vehicles on unauthorised route performing unauthorised route performing unauthorised trips, etc. Other offences like non- production of documents, carrying overload, not performing journey according to the programme, not carrying "carrying list of passengers included in the contract and travelling in the vehicle Special permits are issued for such short periods or for a single journey that the cancellation of the permit is neither possible in the ordinary circumstances nor is of such a nature as to be effective-deterrent against the operator. Whenever repeated cases of misuse of special permits was received, this authority relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Canara Public Convenience v RTA, reported in AIR 1971 Mysore 356 resolved to disqualify such operators from obtaining special permits for a period of fifteen days. This order was challenged by the respective owners before the KSTAT who upheld the orders of this Authority. The orders of the KSTAT was challenged by these owners before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. 13196 to 13220/1985, allowed the writ petitions and held that no such restriction or condition is imposed by the Act and Rules. Thus it follows that the impugned orders, which disqualifies the petitioners from obtaining special permits cannot at all be sustained. However, it was held that it is open to the authority while considering the applications for grant of special permits to take consideration the violations if any of the conditions of the special permits granted in the past committed by the applicant in order to find out whether the applicant is suitable and entitled to grant of special permits. Hence, some applications were being rejected by the Secretary, RTA for offences - committed in the past, but this was not effective in curbing the menace of misuse of special permits. 'The Secretary, RTA under the powers vested in him as also the RTO and RA was suspending the certificate of registration under the provisions ot Section 33(1)(b) of MV Act, 1939, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Court of Karnataka in W.P.Nos, 10399 and 10400/84 dated 6.8.84 in A.B.Chinnagi v. RTO Bijapur and another and in K. Noorullah v RTO and others in W.P.64/19SI, disposed of on 16.9.1982 and in W.P. 1162/84, in M.H. Asmnllah v Dy. Commissioner for transpois disposed of on 7.6.1984, and in Ganapaiah (Jovind v Dv. Supdl. oi Police. Karwar, wherein, it was held that if a vehicle is found being used for purpose other than the one for which the permit was granted, then it shall be deemed that the vehicle was being used without a valid permit, this suspension had some effect on these who arc misusing the special permits. But the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. Appeal No. 2174 and 2175 of 1984 rendered on 9.12.1987 quashed the order of the learned single judge and held that when there is violation of condition of the permit action can be taken under section 60 of the Act and not under Section 33(l)(b). This authority has not so far fixed the compounding fee that can be recovered for violation of conditions of special permit, if the permit holder in agreeable to do so and the compounding fee prescribed vide sub.No. 111/83-4 dt. 22.10.83 is only in respect of stage carriages, Authorikshaws, taxi cabs and goods vehicles. Having regard to the offences that are being committed by those who are operating their vehicles under special permits, it is resolved as under:

(3.) From the aforesaid resolution it is clear that the R.T.A.has delegated the power to compound on payment of certain sum in respect of various offences committed by the Motor Vehicle Operators while operating the vehicles which are mentioned in the said resolution.