IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22379 of 2010(V) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- R.SOMANATHAN, GEETHANJALI NIVAS, POOTHOTTA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CUM THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 011. 2. THE SECRETARY TO TRANSPORT B DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22379 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a regular stage carriage permit holder operating on the route Poothotta-Vyttila-Poothotta with stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AP 5616. On 6.8.2008, it was found that the vehicle had curtailed a particular trip that was to reach Vyttila at 12.52 p.m. in order to start from there at 1.42 p.m. The bus was found waiting near Vyttila bridge at 1.55 p.m. Therefore, a charge memo has been issued in this regard. As per check report dated 30.12.2008, the driver was found not to be in possession of the original records of the vehicle, when required to be produced for verification. Therefore, Exts.P2 and P3 charge memos have been issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the curtailment of the trip was not wilful, but was necessitated due to traffic block. The petitioner contends that as per Exts.P2 and P3, he has been ordered to compound the offences by paying Rs.3,500/- and Rs.5000/- with respect to each of the charges. He complains that he cannot be compelled to compound the offences by making the payments that are directed to be made. He prays that he may atleast to be heard before such orders are passed. wpc No.22379/2010 2 2. I have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader also. A reading of Exts.P2 and P3 shows that there is no such order as alleged, directing the petitioner to compound the offences by paying any amount. What is stated in paragraph-4 of both Exts.P2 and P3 is that if the petitioner is desirous of being heard in person in the matter, he could appear before the first respondent at his office at 11 a.m. on any working day within seven days thereof, with all the relevant records. It is further stated in paragraph-5 that he is given the option to compound the offences by paying compounding fee. It is clear from the above that the petitioner has been given an opportunity of being heard or an option to compound the offence. He was free to choose any one of the above courses, according to his own free will. Exts.P2 and P3 do not contain any order compelling the petitioner to adopt any one of the above courses. Therefore, the allegations of the petitioner are without any foundation. I do not find any illegality in Exts.P2 and P3 warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge css/