IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 33040 of 2007(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.C.RAMANKUTTY S/O.CHAMU EZHUTHACHAN, AGED 57 YEARS "SREE LAKSHMI" PADIVAYAL, P.O.VADUVANCHAL, WAYANAD. BY ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANASPORT AUTHORITY WAYANAD. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANASPORT AUTHORITY WAYANAD,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (TAX) SRI. K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33040 of 2007(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 - ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE IN RESPECT OF EXT.P1 REGULAR PERMIT. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED WITH RESPECT OF EXT.P1 REGULAR PERMIT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE-MEMO DATED 30.10.2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 33040 of 2007 ................................................. Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. By Ext.P4 the petitioner was served with a charge memo alleging that the petitioner violated conditions of the permit issued to the petitioner. That charge memo was based on a check report. Petitioner's contention in this writ petition is that despite a request made in that behalf, the petitioner has not been served with a copy of the check report. The petitioner submits that without furnishing a copy of the check report to the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been taken to task for any violation of the conditions of the permit. But when the petitioner went to the office of the 1st respondent for remitting vehicle tax, the 1st respondent insisted on the petitioner paying the amount of Rs.10,000/- mentioned in Ext.P4 as a condition for receiving the tax. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st W.P(C) No. 33040 of 2007 -2- respondent to issue Check-report dated 20.9.2007 with respect of the vehicle S/c. KL-12/C 6175. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with Section 86 of K.M.V.Act; iii) direct the 1st respondent not to take any further action for releasing the sum of Rs.10,000/- under Section 86(5) as per Ext.P4 Charge Memo, pending disposal of the Writ Petition; iv) direct the Secretary, who is also the R.T.O., to accept the tax for the quarter ending 31.12.2007 with respect of the vehicle, S/c. KL-12/C 6175, without insisting the remittance of Rs.10,000/- a pre-condition for accepting the tax before 15.12.2007.” 2. According to the petitioner, petitioner has not violated any permit conditions. The petitioner would contend that under Section 86(5) of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to a copy of the check report and the petitioner is not liable to pay the compounding fee as demanded by the respondents without furnishing a copy of the check report and hearing the petitioner's objections to the same. 3. The learned Government Pleader would contend that the check report was served on the conductor of the stage carriage but the learned Government Pleader would frankly admit that at present the respondents are not in a position to produce any material to prove the same. W.P(C) No. 33040 of 2007 -3- 4. In view of the said circumstance I am of opinion that the matter should be reconsidered by the respondents. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 5. The 1st respondent shall first issue a copy of the check report dated 20.9.2007 in respect of vehicle No. KL-12/C 6175 to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be given two weeks time to submit objections to the same. The 2nd respondent shall consider the objections of the petitioner in accordance with Section 86 of the Act and pass appropriate orders thereon. Till an appellable order is so passed, no further action shall be taken against the petitioner for non-payment of the compounding fee of Rs.10,000/- as demanded in Ext.P4. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs