Madras High CourtWP(MD)/23115/2017dismissed as infructuous

G.Vadivu v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2020-07-15Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.07.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No. 23115 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.19427, 19428 and 19429 of 2017 G.Vadivu ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Home Secretary, Home, (Tr.VII) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

2.The District Collector cum Regional Transport Authority, Trichy, Trichy District.

3.The Regional Transport Officer, Pirattiyur, Tiruchirappalli West, Trichy District.

4.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd, Trichy District.

5.The Divisional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., DM City, Trichy District.

6.The Inspector of Police (Traffic), Fort Police Station, Fort, Trichy District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.849, Home (Tr.VII) Department dated 13.12.2011 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbearing the 4th and 5th respondents and their officials from interfering and creating any trouble to the petitioner Stage Carriages bearing Registration No. TN 45 AQ 1177 and TN 45 AT 1777 plying on the route Trichy 1/4

Junction to Samayapuram Kovil while enter into the Chathiram Bus Stand (2 Track Woraiyur Bus Pit).

For Petitioner : Mr.A.C.Asaithambi For R1 to R3 and R6 : Mrs.S.Srimathy, Special Government Pleader.

For R4 and R5 : Mr.D.Sivaraman

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2.The primary grievance regarding challenging the impugned G.O.Ms.No.849, Home (Tr.VII) Department dated 13.12.2011 may not survive, because I have already allowed similar Writ Petitions earlier. I have already held as follows:

"2.The grievance of the petitioner is only in respect of serial No.30 annexed to the said G.O incorporating Section 192-A(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner does not question the said Government Order in other aspects. His challenge is confined to Serial No.30 contained in the annexure to the impugned G.O Ms.No.849 dated 13.12.2011.

3.The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enables composition of the offences mentioned in the 200(1). Section 200(1) of the Act reads as follows : Any offence whether committed before or after the commencement of this Act punishable under section 177, section 178, section 179, section 180, section 181, section 182, subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 183, section 184, section 186, 8[section 189, sub-section (2) of section 190,] section 191, section 192, section 194, section 196, or section 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.

4.Invoking the said power under Section 200(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the impugned Government Order has been issued. But, interestingly, Section 200(1) of the Act does not include the offences under Section 192 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, it is obvious that the Government could not have authorized the traffic police not below the rank of the Sub Inspector of Police to levy spot fine even in respect of the offence under Section 192 A of the Act. Such an authorisation is clearly without the authority of law. Unless Section 200(1) is amended to 2/4

include Section 192 A of the Act such an authorisation could not have been given.

5.The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government does not deal with this contention at all. A feeble submission was made that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed since the challenge has been mounted after a gap of three years. The said Government Order was issued in December 2011 whereas the writ petition was filed only in February, 2015. When the validity of the Government Order or statute is questioned, laches can never be a reply or defence. The authority of the C.Natarajan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2018, to issue the G.O in question in respect of the offence under Section 192 A has been raised. There is no answer. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside insofar as Serial No.30 in the annexure including Section 192-A(1) is concerned. In all other respects, the impugned G.O is sustained."

3. The second part of the prayer may not also survive, because the issue pertains to the parking of the vehicle at the Chathiram Bus Stand. Now the Chathiram Bus Stand has been demolished and a new bus stand is under construction. If he has any grievance thereafter, he may file a fresh petition on fresh cause of action.

4.This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AD-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) das Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

3/4

To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Home Secretary, Home, (Tr.VII) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.