G KAMALA Vs. ASST R T O PUTTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is common in these two Writ Petitions, is a registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. CAW, 392 and has been operating the vehicle by obtaining special permit under Section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner is operating the said vehicle with valid permit. When the said vehicle was checked by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles on 24-7-1987 at 6.15 A M. near Gundiya he found that 21 adult passengers, were carried from Bangalore to Mangalore by collecting Rs. 60/- per head individually from the passengers. At the same time on the date of checking, it was found that the vehicle was not covered by any permit at all to perform the said journey. The driver of the vehicle is stated to have compounded the offence by paying Rs. 1000/-on the spot under receipt No 95459 dated 24 7-1987.

(2.) Consequent to the submission of the check report, the first respondent issued a show cause dated 19-8-1987. The petitioner did not appear on 15-10-1987 and did not furnish any written statement. Thereafter, on 30-10-1987, the case was decided on merits. Respondent No. 1 suspended the Certificate of Registration for a period of 60 days. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent who confirmed the order of the first respondent on 27-1-1988. Hence, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order in Writ Petition No. 3461/1988.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner conceded that the vehicle was operating without valid permit. However, he submitted that the suspension order is too harsh and deserves sympathetic consideration for reducing the period of suspension. I have perused the order of the 3rd respondent. But I am not satisfied with the reasoning given for confirming the period of suspension of 60 days. It is one of the elementary principles to be followed while fixing the period of suspension by way of punishment, that the period of suspension should be commensurate with the gravity of the wrong committed or the violation of law committed. No law is shown by the consideration of which, the mind of the first respondent was influenced nor from the order of the 3rd respondent any reason as to why the suspension of the registration certificate was ordered for a period of two months.