N RAMU Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the writ petitions the petitioners who are operators of the contract carriages have called in question the validity and the legality of the directions issued by the Transport Commissioner contained in his D.O. Letter No.28648/ M1 / 95, dated 3-8-1995. Therefore, these two writ petitions were heard together at the stage of admission itself. Sri E. Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader were heard in the matter.

(2.) The petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondents-Motor Vehicle Authorities not to launch prosecution against the petitioners and / or their crew under Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') in pursuance of the directions contained in the D.O. letter of the Transport Commissioner dated 3-8-1995, referred to above. They have also sought consequential direction to the Motor Vehicle Inspectors concerned not to launch prosecution against the petitioners and / or their drivers or other members of the crew.

(3.) The D.O. letter No.28648/M1/95, dated 3-8-1995 is extracted herebelow for ready reference: