PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are interconnected involving identical questions of fact and law, therefore, with the consent of Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Addl. C.S.C. appearing for the respondents, all the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. To understand the controversy involved, facts of Writ Petition No. 2853 of 2014 (M/S) are being narrated.

(2.) PETITIONER is the owner of three wheeler tempo (Auto -rickshaw) bearing registration no. U.K. -07 -T.A. - 7230 and is having contract carriage permit bearing permit no. 294 for plying his auto -rickshaw within city routes of Dehradun region with maximum passenger capacity up to seven; petitioner was challaned on 14.04.2011, 30.08.2011 and 25.01.2014 for carrying excess passengers over and above passengers capacity of seven; each time petitioner has confessed his guilt and has compounded the offence and has paid fine/penalty/compounding fee as fixed by the State Government; vide impugned order dated 27.10.2014, permit of the petitioner was suspended for the three months by exercising jurisdiction under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which was also came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2014; feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

(3.) MR . Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that as per Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if petitioner has paid compounding fee/fine for over -loading as fixed by the State Government, then permit of the petitioner should not be suspended under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act and same would amount double jeopardize.