Prakashbhai Prataprai Dave vs A.R. Vohra Inspector of Motor Vehicles and Another

K.S. Jhaveri, J.

As common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

By way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned action of the respondent-authority of imposing penalty on the ground of committing breach of the conditions of Permit.

The facts in brief are that the petitioners are engaged in the business of transport in the area of Bhavnagar District with extension to other parts of the State subject to certain conditions.

2.1 On 01.08.1999 while the vehicles belonging to the petitioners were proceeding from Gariadhar to Surat, they were intercepted by respondent No. 1 at Bharuch Tax Plaza. On inspection, the respondent No. 1 found that the relevant provisions of the Permit had been breached. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 2000/- was imposed as penalty. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of respondent No. 1, the present petitions have been preferred.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is not in dispute that the Permit, which was granted in favour of the petitioners, was for a Contract Carriage and not a Stage Carriage. As per the definition of "Contract Carriage" provided in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the said Act") the owner of the vehicle cannot charge separately for each of the passengers travelling in the vehicle. However, the same is not the case for the holder of a Permit of Stage Carriage. The holder of a Permit of Stage Carriage can charge separately for each of the passengers travelling in the vehicle. In other words, the owner of a vehicle with Contract Carriage cannot charge separately for each of the passengers, whereas, the same could be done by the owner of a vehicle of Stage Carriage. In the present case, on inquiry, it was found that each of the passengers travelling in the said vehicles had been charged separately, thereby, committing breach of the terms of Permit.

Section 86 of the said Act empowers the transport authority to cancel or suspend the permit granted in favour of the owner of a vehicle, if it is found that any of the conditions of the Permit had been breached. A defence has been taken by stating that respondent No. 1-authority, instead of cancelling or suspending the Permit, has imposed penalty, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 207 of the said Act. Sub-section 5 of Section 86 of the said Act empowers the transport authority to recover from the holder of Permit the sum of money agreed upon, instead of cancelling or suspending the Permit, if it is found that the terms of Permit had been breached.

In the present case, it appears from the record that at the relevant time, the petitioners had showed their readiness to pay the amount of penalty and therefore, the respondent-authority had accepted the amount of penalty u/s 86(5) of the said Act. However, an attempt has been made to show that the amount of penalty, which is said to have been willingly paid by the petitioners at the relevant time, was, in fact, paid under compulsion. In my opinion, after having availed of the remedy u/s 86(5) of the said Act, it is now not open to the petitioners to take a stand that the penalty, as paid by them willingly, had been recovered from them under threat or duress. There is no material on record to show that the said amount of penalty was paid under threat or duress. Today, the said position is irreversible. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the respondent No. 1-authority was completely justified in taking the impugned action and hence, I find no reasons to interfere in these petitions in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

For the foregoing reasons, the petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.