IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10718 of 2008 BETWEEN Smt. B.V.N.S. Savitha Kumari. ... PETITIONER AND The Station House Officer, Gopalapuram Traffic Police Station, Secunderabad and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. MAMIDI VENU MADHAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: ORDER: This writ petition is filed with a prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the impugned Notice (Served Notice Case) dated 20.3.2008 under Section 113 of M.V. Act 1988 with e- Challan No.2007DAO24874, dated 4.9.2007 of the O/o. the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad issued Under 80(A)/177 of APMV Rules and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and malafide and collecting excess amount of Rs.35/- in the guise of service charges in addition to the fine of Rs.100/- is violation fundamental rights by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari and pass other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is the owner of car bearing No.AP09J 7779. On the ground that the petitioner has committed traffic offence, the impugned notice has been issued demanding her to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and further amount of Rs.35/- as service charge. It is the case of the petitioner that the challan is issued with the allegation that it has wrong number plate and the said notice is issued after seven months after the incident and it totally lacks particulars. 3. Though counter affidavit is filed denying the averments of the petitioner, it is merely stated that the vehicle was plying with irregular number plate. 4. Neither in the notice nor in the counter affidavit the details of the traffic offence committed by the petitioner are illustrated. Though it is a compoundable offence, the owner of the vehicle is entitled to know the nature of the offence committed. Merely stating in the counter affidavit that the vehicle was plying with wrong number plate and without giving any particulars, the respondents are not entitled to collect any penalty or any other amount titled as service charge from the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notice is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J August 18, 2011 DSK