IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 33629 of 2009(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.CONFRATE CARGO SERVICES PVT.LTD.,INDIRA GANDHI ROAD,W.ISLAND,COCHIN-3, REPRESENTED BY BALAGOPALA B. PAI. 2. V.KRISHNA KUMAR,THAVAKKAL HOUSE, 19/596 A,SREE SANKARANARAYANA TEMPLE ROAD, PALLURUTHY,COCHIN-6. BY ADVS. MR.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, MR.M.JITHESH MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. MUHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010,ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 33681/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.33629/2009-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NATIONAL PERMIT WITH ENDORSEMENT REGARDING RENEWAL TILL 24/10/2010 IN RESPECT OF KL-7/AB 2809. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE AUTHORISATION ISSUED IN RESPECT OF KL-7/AB.2809 DTD. 23/10/2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NATIONAL PERMIT IN RESPECT OF KL-7/U. 8744 WITH ENDORSEMENT REGARDING RENEWAL TILL 20/10/2013. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE AUTHORISATION ISSUED IN RESPECT OF KL-7/U. 8744 DTD. 28/10/08. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF AUTHORISATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. DTD. 15/10/09. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF AUTHORISATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.2. DTD. 15/10/09. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.2. IN RESPECT OF GOODS CARRIAGE KL-7/AB.2809. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.2. IN RESPECT OF GOODS CARRIAGE KL-7/U. 8744. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 17783/09 DTD. 28/07/09. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 33629 & 33681 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th March, 2010. JUDGMENT The questions raised in both these writ petitions are common and therefore, they are disposed of together. 2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are registered owners of goods carriage vehicles covered by national permits. The vehicle of the first petitioner in W.P(C) 33629/2009 is KL-7 AB 2809. The vehicles of the petitioner in W.P(C) 33681/2009 are those bearing registration Nos: KL-7/AA 1787, KL-7/M 8667 and KL-7/W 9048. Since all these vehicles are having national permits, they have also been issued with authorisations as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P4 in W.P(C) 33629/2009 and Exts.P2,P4 and P6 in the other. The authorisation is required to be renewed every year and accordingly the petitioners applied for renewal of the authorisations granted to them. With respect to one vehicle in W.P(C) 33681/2009, renewal of the permit has also been sought for, which is Ext.P9. The contention of the petitioners is that their authorisations have not been renewed so far. The reason for not renewing the authorization is, the pendency of certain check reports against them alleging violations for which they are liable to WPC 33629 & 33681/2009 2 be punished. They also have the option of compounding the offences. Memos have been issued to them directing them to pay the compounding fee. Unless the compounding fee is paid it is stated that the authorisations would not be renewed. The petitioners challenge the above action of the respondents. 3. The counsel for the petitioners have drawn my attention to Ext.P9 judgment of this Court dated 28.7.2009 where, in a similar situation directions have been issued to the respondents to grant authorisations without insisting on payment of the compounding fee. I have also heard the learned senior Govt. Pleader for the respondents. 4. According to the learned Govt. Pleader only a charge memo for the offence under Section 113(3)(b) read with Section 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act have been issued. Further steps in terms of Section 86 read with Section 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the 'Act' for short) have not been issued. 5. Since the proceedings in respect of the vehicles of the petitioners are not complete, they cannot be directed to be paid the compounding fee as found by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment. Further proceedings pursuant to the charge memos issued to the petitioners would have to be completed in accordance with either WPC 33629 & 33681/2009 3 Sections 86 and 194 of the Act. The petitioners also have a right to compound the offence if they choose. However, the applications for renewal of the authorisations of the petitioners need not depend on the outcome of the above proceedings. Therefore, as found by this Court in Ext.P9, the respondents have to consider the applications of the petitioners without insisting on payment of the compounding fee. In the above circumstances these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the applications for renewal of permit as well as renewal of authorisations submitted by the petitioners, without insisting on payment of the compounding fee. Orders on the applications submitted by the petitioner shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be a further direction to the respondents to complete the proceedings either under Section 86 or Section 94 of the Act within a period of six months. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 33629 & 33681/2009 4 WPC 33629 & 33681/2009 5 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: