IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1937 of 2009 Kapil Muni Rai & Ors . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3/ 05/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are stated to be Enforcement Sub-inspectors in the Transport Department. They are aggrieved by certain executive directions/instructions fixing a target of checking at least 50 vehicles and recovering Rs.20 thousand towards compounding as penalty giving 10 minutes minimum for checking. This amount has subsequently been raised to Rs.50,000/- in the town of Gaya, Muzaffarpur and Mohania Checkpost areas, Rs.75,000/- in the town of Patna and Rs.40,000/- in other district towns per day. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these directions are wholly unrealistic as it may not be possible to get that many offenders in a day. Even if the offenders are caught, they may not agree for compounding and may desire to face a harsher prosecution inviting impounding of their vehicles also under the Damage to Public Property Act or any other similar law. If in such circumstances the compounding targets are not achieved, the petitioners would end up 2 with departmental proceedings against them. In fact, petitioner No.3 has been subjected to departmental proceedings on this charge and which is pending. The respondents cannot impose such a burden on the petitioners as a measure of revenue generating exercise which is an entirely different matter from the discharge of their duties by the petitioners to the best of their ability. No other grounds have been urged to assail the executive directions. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit. The tenor of the counter affidavit is that defaulters on the roads cannot be allowed to get away with. The problem of defaulters has increased with the unprecedented increase of the number of vehicles which requires regular enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules. The directions for collection have been fixed on basis of past collection figures and experiences. Many Enforcement Sub-inspectors have achieved the targets and some of them have collected more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- revenue individually. The executive directions are a policy matter in no way violating the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. It will also check evasion of tax by defaulting vehicles. Adequate steps have been taken for providing facilities to the Enforcement Sub-inspectors to perform their 3 duties. There is no gainsaying that there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of vehicles operating and crossing the boundaries of the State of Bihar. In fact, the respondents appear to be acting realistically and pragmatically which is more than evident from the executive instructions contained in the minutes of the meeting dated 15.7.2008. Gaya, Muzaffarpur and Mohania Checkpost are locations for ingress and egress in the State where there is much heavy vehicular traffic apart from other vehicles in inter State trade as also passenger vehicles. Naturally, the target to be fixed for that area has to be different from others. Road discipline on the roads of Patna is legendry, at least to the inhabitants of this town. Considering the financial status of the residents of the capital city, the Court does not consider the amount fixed as unreasonable. In other districts it has been fixed as Rs.40,000/-. This is obviously based on the past experience as mentioned in the counter affidavit and the number of increase of vehicles. Past experience shall necessarily take within its ambit the frequency of violations which may have been noticed by the authorities. A person involved in a serious road offence or 4 violation of the law shall naturally have to be subject to stringent prosecution cannot be subjected to compounding. It does not stand to reason that an offender who can get away by compounding, by any stretch of logic, shall insist that he must see the gallows and he will not agree for compounding. It defies logic and thus is not acceptable to the Court. Therefore, if an Enforcement Sub-inspector takes the defence that he has achieved good figures for serious violations by prosecution or collection of fines etc., that he may not have achieved the figures for compounding obviously shall not operate to his detriment, but the converse cannot be true. The fixation of targets naturally shall require the petitioners to be on their toes. It shall also require them to issue proper money receipts. The Court cannot lose sight of these facts. If despite the best efforts an Enforcement Sub- inspector is not able to achieve the target, what may or may not happen to him thereafter is speculative at this stage. If he is sought to be faulted with, naturally, he has to be given an opportunity to defend himself. His defence will have to be considered prudently. These are questions of facts to be considered at the appropriate point of time in an appropriate manner. In fact, 5 departmental proceedings have already been initiated against petitioner No.3. He shall therefore have a full opportunity to defend himself and satisfy the authorities that despite his best efforts as an obedient government servant, conscious of his duties, discharging duties to the best of his abilities, he was unable to achieve targets for no fault of his. Surely, that shall be a matter for consideration by the respondents. The fixation of targets by the Executive in an effort to gear up its officials and require them to work in a manner to the satisfaction of the employer is for the respondents to decide and not for the Court to supplant its views upon the same. If the fixation of a target to enforce the Rule of Law results in revenue generation, that is only a fall out. In any event of the matter, if the law is sought to be enforced as a measure of revenue generation also, the Court sees no fault in it. If the policy is not arbitrary, irrational and without jurisdiction, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere. Presently, the Court finds it very difficult to hold that the policy framed, as discussed hereinabove, is either arbitrary, illogical or suffers from Wednusbury’s unreasonableness as suggested on behalf of the petitioners. In (2001) 3 SCC 635 (UGAR SUGAR WORKS LIMITED Versus DELHI 6 ADMINISTRATION) the Supreme Court was considering the question of fixation of targets by achieving minimum sale figures criteria for the lowest priced brand to be met by an applicant for liquor licence. The argument raised was that the fixation of such minimum sales figures was violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India being irrational and arbitrary having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Court need not go into that part of the discussion where the Supreme Court dealt with the question of liquor trade. Dealing with the policy aspect of the matter in fixing minimum sale figures, it was held at paragraph Nos.18 and 22 as follows:- “18. The challenge, thus, in effect, is to the executive policy regulating trade in liquor in Delhi. It is well settled that the courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy. In tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial restraint, if not judicial deference, to judgment of the executive. The courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the 7 discretion of the State. 22….Laying down requirement of achieving Minimum Sales Figures of a particular brand of liquor in other States, as a mode for determination of the “acceptability” of that brand of liquor, is neither irrelevant, nor irrational nor unreasonable. It appears that prescription of MSF requirement is aimed at allowing sale of only such brands of liquor which have been tested, tried and found acceptable at large in other parts of the country…” The Court finds no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)