AJANTHA TRAVELSPONDICHERRY Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITYPONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to quash the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the second respondent herein, on 17-7-1981 in MVA No. 12/81. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner M/s. Ajantha Travels are contract carriage and stage carriage operators in Pondicherry State. They obtained a temporary permit to ply a stage carriage on the route Pondicherry to Karaikal for a period of four months from 2-5-1979 to 1-9-1979. On 19-5-1979 the vehicle was checked by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade I, flying squad, Thiruchirapalli. It was discovered that the vehicle was over loaded by 14 passengers and that the R.C. and I. C. permits were not carried for check. A charge memo was served on the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the permit should not be suspended or cancelled for the said violation. At the time of hearing before the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry on 23-8-1980 it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the temporary permit had expired and consequently no action could be taken against them for the alleged violation. Secondly it was contended that the explanation offered by the petitioner should be accepted. The first respondent held that the charge of overloading was proved and accordingly imposed a fine of Rs. 150/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal in MVA No. 12/81 before the second respondent, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry. The second respondent found that the first respondent was right in coming to the conclusion that the charge of over loading stood proved. However, the second respondent accepted the contention of the petitioner. In the latter view the second respondent set aside the order of the first respondent imposing a fine of Rs. 150/- on the petitioner and allowed the appeal. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Mr. G. Ramaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner urged two contentions before me namely (1) the temporary permit was granted for a period of four months only from 2-5-1979 to 1-9-1979. Even though the check of the vehicle was made on 19-5-1979 and a charge memo was issued before the expiry of the permit, at the time when the matter was heard by the first respondent, the permit had expired. Under section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the 1st respondent has only the power to cancel or suspend the permit in certain circumstances. Section 60 (3) provides for the compounding of the offences by directing the payment of a certain sum of money. In as much as in this case the permit has expired at the time the first respondent passed the order on 23-8-1980, the order was without jurisdiction and the Act did not confer any power on the first respondent to impose a fine of Rs. 150/-. The second respondent having understood correctly understood the legal position and having set aside the order of fine, had no jurisdiction to enter a finding of guilt on the charge of over-loading against the petitioner. (2) In any view of the matter the finding of the second respondent that the charge of over-loading stood proved was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and by failure to take into consideration relevant materials. Mr. G. Ramaswamy further submitted that under the Motor Vehicles Rules, applicable to the Pondicherry State there is no prohibition in the issue of a combined ticket to children of a particular age group as in Madras. In other words, so far as Pondicherry State is concerned, there was no prohibition for one full ticket being issued to two children and it will not be necessary to issue separate half ticket for each of the children. In this case the petitioner's explanation was that there were a number of children and the petitioner had issued combined tickets.

(3.) Mr. Govindaswamy, learned Government pleader for State of Pondicherry, met the arguments of G. Rangaswamy, by contending that the proceedings against the petitioner had been initiated even during the currency of the permit even though the matter came up for hearing before the first Respondent only after the expiry of the permit. In the circumstances, both the Respondents were competent to enter a finding whether the Petitioner was guilty of over-loading or not even though no punishment could be imposed as stated by the second Respondent. As regards the second contention urged by Mr. G. Ramaswamy, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the question of over-loading was one of fact and this Court should not interfere with the finding of fact entered by the second respondent.