M. Ramalingam vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—By consent, main writ petition is taken up for disposal.

One M. Ramalingam, the President of Tamil Nadu Auto, Taxi, Van, Tempo Van Owners and Drivers Welfare Union, aggrieved by the order of

the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 628 Home (TPT VII) Department dated 28.4.1995 has filed the above writ petition to quash the same as

arbitrary and unreasonable and for a direction to the Respondents not to collect spot fine in so far as the Madurai City is concerned.

According to the Petitioner, he is a President of Tamil Nadu, Auto, Taxi, Van, Tempo Van Owners and Drivers Welfare Union having its office

at Madurai. It is stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu by way of impugned Government'' Order, has granted unfettered powers to the

Officers of the Transport Department for levying spot fine. The authorities empowered to levy and collect fines are biased in their decisions and

hence, the Petitioner has no say in the matter due to the undue interest shown by the authorities favouring the collection of fines for the Government

without following the principles of natural justice.

It is further stated that the members of the Petitioner-Association are being harassed by the authorities who have pecuniary interest in the matter

of levy of spot fine and the acts committed by them are not exercised judicially. It is also stated that the proceeding before the authorities is neither

a judicial proceeding nor a quasi judicial proceedings and hence the vesting of unfettered, enormous and oppressive powers infringe the

Petitioner''s valuable right of human dignity and self-respect. With these averments, the Union has prayed for interference by this Court.

The Respondents 1 and 4 have filed a separate counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit of the first Respondent, it is stated that the Government

in G.O. Ms. No.875 Home dated 1.4.1986 notified that the officials of the Police and Transport Department be empowered to enforce the

provision of Section 127B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to compound the traffic offences. The compounding fee for various offences had also

been specified in that notification. The similar provision is also made in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Government also issued fresh

notification in G.O. Ms. No. 1191, Home dated 1.7.1989. The Government in G.O. Ms. No. , 1767 Home dated 28.10.1992 reintroduced the

spot fine system in Chennai City at first and thereafter it was extended to Madurai and Coimbatore in G.O. Ms. No. 628, Home dated 28.4.1995

to book the traffic offences in the Metropolitan cities. The instance of the impugned Government order is to enforce the provisions of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988.

It is further stated that as per Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 any offence whether committed before or after the Act punishable

under Sections 177, 178, 179,180, 181,182, 183(1)(2), 184, 186, 189, 191, 192, 194, 196 and 198 may either before or after the institution of

the prosecution be compounded by such officers or authorities and for such amount as the State Government may by notification in the Official

Gazette specify in this behalf. Accordingly, the Government have passed the impugned Government Order authorising the Police Officers not

below the rank of Inspector of Police to compound offences committed under the said Act in the city of Madurai and Coimbatore and also

authorised the officers of the Transport Department not below the rank of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Non-Technical) in the check posts of

Transport Department. Similar submissions have been made by the fourth Respondent in his counter affidavit dated 8.1.1997.

In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the

Respondents.

Though several contentions have been raised in the light of the statutory provisions from the Motor Vehicles Act which enables the Government

to introduce the spot fine system and in the light of the particulars informations furnished by the Respondents 1 and 4 in their counter affidavits, I

am unable to accept the grievance expressed by the Petitioner. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the Government have no power to issue the

impugned Government Order, which only enables the Police Officers not below the rank of Inspector of Police and the Officers of the Transport

Department not below the rank of Motor Vehicles Inspector to compound the traffic offences. It is also clear that if the person is aggrieved over

the spot fine of the Traffic Officer and not willing to compound the offence, he has willing to compound the offence, he has every right to approach

the Court for such offence. It is also stated by the Respondents 1 and 4 that the spot fine system was introduced in Chennai City from 1992 and

according to them, the public have appreciated. It is also clear that if the offender is not willing to compound the offence, it is always open to him to

face the prosecution before the concerned Court.

In the light of the statutory provision which enables the Government to authorise the officers of the Police and Traffic Department to impose spot

fine, I do not find any merit in the claim made by the Petitioner-Union. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No Costs.

Consequently, the W.M.P. Nos. 17962 and 17963 of 1996 are also dismissed.