IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9819 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHARMA TRANSPORTS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.SURESH KUMAR SHARMA, S/O.LATE D.P.SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 41, R/O NO.328, T.S.P.ROAD, FORT, KALASIPALYAM, BANGALORE - 560 002. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA, ERNAKULAM. 3. ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 9819 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 25, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P5 and P6. It is stated that the petitioner is a tourist operator and that the petitioner's vehicle was checked en-route and, on the issue of a check report, the driver was taken to the mobile court and by Exts.P3 and P4 fine was imposed and was paid. Thereafter yet another vehicle was also checked and for the violations that were noticed, fine was again imposed by Ext.P7. It is in this background that the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the check reports as well as the levy of fine. 2. As is seen from Ext.P6, the notice issued to the driver on inspection of the vehicle, he was required to appear before the mobile court and the notice itself provides that if the accused desired to contest the case, he was to appear before the magistrate to answer the charges. In pursuance to Ext.P6 and similar notice, when the driver appeared before the magistrate, he paid the fine WP(C) 9819/08 Page numbers voluntarily and it is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed challenging the same. 3. In my view, having voluntarily opted to plead guilty and pay the fine, it is not open to the petitioner to approach this court challenging the check report or levy of fine. True, in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, petitioner has averred that no time was given to the driver to enable him to contact the permit holder to decide as to whether the check report is to be accepted and the offence be compounded. But this writ petition has not been filed by the driver and is not even supported with an affidavit sworn to by the concerned driver to corroborate this averment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I cannot accept the contentions raised by the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-