JAMI APPALA SWAMY Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions are at the instance of the operators of motor vehicles, who seek to challenge the resolutions passed by the respective Regional Transport authorities, revising the existing compounding fee and enhancing the same in purported exercise of power under Rule 217 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') as bad, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, apart from being contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder. Hence all these writ petitions are taken up together for the purpose of disposal.

(2.) For convenience sake, I would refer the facts in W. P. No. 20903 of 1997 for the purpose of disposal of all the writ petitions.

(3.) 1st respondent - The Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam, represented by its Secretary, passed resolution dated 13-6-1997, under which, at Item No. 1, it was resolved to revise the existing sum of money to be recovered in lieu of cancellation or suspension of the different classes of permits under Section 86 of the Act read with Rule 217 of the Rules. Under the said resolution, the revision was made in respect of the rates as fixed earlier in the resolution at Item No. 2 dated 30-8-1989. According to the petitioners, the provisions under Section 86 of the Act enables the authorities to accept certain sum of money in lieu of cancellation or suspension of the permit for any offence. Rule 217 of the Rules prescribes the minimum rates for collection as 'compounding fee' for the offence committed. It has also been pointed out that an attempt to fix 'compounding fee' by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 54 dated 31-3-1994 was set at naught by this Court in regard to contract and stage carriage for offences under Section 192-A of the Act as being contrary to Section 200 of the Act. Therefore, the authorities have resorted to invoke Rule 217 of the Rules and fixed the compounding fee, which is beyond the powers conferred under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It was pointed out that under the impugned resolution, varied rates are also fixed for the first offence, second offence, third offence, fourth offence, fifth offence and so on thereby increasing the compounding fee for every successive offence committed within twenty four months. Thus, the main contention is that the fixation of any rate of the compounding fee by the 1st respondent - The Regional Transport Authority is without any power, authority or jurisdiction and hence the writ petition.