THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 11183 of 2000 Order: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents and their subordinates not to seize or collect compounding fees for the alleged violation of the provisions of Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of the petitioners’ vehicles after declaring that the respondents have no authority in law. A consequential direction is sought to direct the respondents to refund the amounts collected in respect of the petitioners’ vehicles. Sri Noushad Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly states that the authorities have the power in an appropriate case to seize the vehicles and what is being questioned in this writ petition is only the collection of compounding fees for the alleged violation of the provisions of Section 192-A of the Act. Learned counsel would submit that among the oﬀences, which are compoundable under Section 200 of the Act, the oﬀence under Section 192-A of the Act does not ﬁnd mention and, consequently, while the respondents are entitled to prosecute the petitioners for any alleged violations of Section 192-A of the Act they have no authority in law to direct payment of any compounding fee for the alleged violation. Learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of this Court in W.P. No.9936 of 1995 dated 23.11.1995 in this regard. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Transport, while fairly stating that the oﬀence under Section 192-A of the Act was not among those enumerated under Section 200 of the Act and that the said offence is not compoundable, would, however, contend that the G.O issued by the Government was, in fact, beneﬁcial to the petitioners and, as the petitioners had voluntarily paid the amount without protest, they were not entitled to question the action of the respondents in this regard. Learned Government Pleader would also state that, subsequently, a circular was issued by the Transport Commissioner directing his subordinates not to collect compounding fees for the offence under Section 192-A of the Act. It is evident from a reading of Sections 192-A and 200 of the Act that among the oﬀences, which can be compounded under Section 200 of the Act, Section 192-A of the Act is not included and, as a consequence, for any oﬀence under Section 192-A IPC the respondents are entitled only to prosecute the violators and cannot, by way of any executive instructions, levy compounding fee. Once the respondent authorities are held to be denuded of any authority in law in collecting a fee for the oﬀence under Section 192-A of the Act, their action in collecting compounding fees must be held to arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The mere fact that the petitioners had paid the said amount without demur, would not disentitle them from questioning the action of the respondents, since it is well settled that the petitioners cannot waive their fundamental rights. Since G.O. Ms. No. 54, whereunder the compounding fees has been collected, has been set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 9936 of 1995 dated 23.11.1995, all that is required to be done is to direct the respondents not to collect compounding fees for violation of the provisions of Section 192-A of the Act and, since it is admitted that the said amount had been collected, there shall be a direction to the respondents to refund the said amount to the petitioners without interest within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state that this order shall not preclude the respondents from taking action against the petitioners both under Section 192-A and Section 86 of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 12.11.2008 Nsr