Sajimon Thomas v. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC** **THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930** **WP(C).No. 9385 of 2008(P)** **-------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **--------------** **SAJIMON THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEKKELAKKATHIL, PALAKKATUMALA, PALA.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK** **RESPONDENTS:** **------------------** **1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM.** **2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM.** **BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WPC NO.9385/08** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT VALID FOR 5 YEARS FROM 9/4/2002 TO 8/4/2007.** **EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL SUBMITTED WITH THE REQUISITE FEE ON 4/4/2007.** **EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 3.4.2007. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDNET DT.7/8/2007.** **EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 16/1/2008. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 18/1/2008.** **EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 24/3/2008.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, J.** ## **=============== W.P.(C) NO. 9385 OF 2008 P** ## **====================** ## **Dated this the 31[st] day of July, 2008** ## **J U D G M E N T** The question that arises for consideration is whether compounding fee can be levied for entertaining a belated application for renewal of permit? 2. Ext.P1 regular permit granted to the petitioner was valid till 8/4/2007. In terms of Section 81(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he ought to have applied for renewal before 15 days of expiry of the permit. However, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for renewal only on 4/4/2007. Along with Ext.P2, he also enclosed Ext.P3 medical certificate, in order to get the delay in submitting Ext.P2 condoned in terms of Section 81(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which enables the RTA to entertain even a belated application for renewal provided it was satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the specified time. 3. RTA considered the renewal application and by Ext.P4 proceedings petitioner was informed that renewal was granted on payment **WPC 9385/08** **:2 :** of compounding fee of Rs.2000/-. The petitioner paid the compounding fee and the receipt of which was acknowledged by Ext.P5 dated 16/1/2008. On the strength of Exts. P4 and P5, petitioner approached the 2[nd] respondent for making necessary endorsement of renewal and thereupon Ext.P6 was issued informing that the compounding fee originally imposed was Rs.20,000/- and the figure 2,000 mentioned in Ext.P4 was a mistake. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to remit the balance Rs.18,000/- and clear the check report to get the renewal endorsed. It is thereupon that this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P6 and to direct the 2[nd] respondent to endorse the renewal of permit granted by Ext.P4 without insisting on any further remittance of compounding fee. 4. The learned Government Pleader has made available before me a photocopy of the proceedings of the RTA held on 7.8.2007, and making reference to item 145, submits that renewal of permit was granted subject to remittance of a compounding fee of Rs.20,000/-. According to the learned Government Pleader the figure 2000 mentioned in Ext.P4 was a clerical mistake and realising the mistake, the correct position was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P6. It is contended that the **WPC 9385/08** ## **:3 :** petitioner should remit the balance Rs.18,000/- in order to clear the check report and get the renewal of permit endorsed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits of having made remittance of Rs.2,000 as per Ext.P5, but however contends that in the absence of any specific conferment of power, the RTA has no jurisdiction to levy compounding fee while exercising its power under Section 81(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Government Pleader however relies on the judgment of this court reported in **Firoz v. RTA, Malappuram (1997(2) KLT 110)** and contends that the RTA's power to decide on the application for renewal under Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is discretionary and that while exercising the discretionary power conferred under Section 81(3), it is entitled to impose conditions, such as compounding fee. According to the learned Government Pleader, the RTA was well in its power in levying compounding fee on the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. 7. Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the duration and renewal of permits. Section 81(2) provides that a permit may **WPC 9385/08** **:4 :** be renewed on an application made not less than 15 days before the date of its expiry. Section 81(3) confers power on the RTA to entertain an application for renewal even if it is a belated one and this section, reads as follows: “81(3): Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that subsection if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. 8. Rule 172 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules provides for renewal of permits. A perusal of section 81(3) and Rule 172 reveals that there is no provision in either of these provisions, enabling the RTA to impose any compounding fee or other similar conditions while entertaining a belated application made for renewal of permit. 9. While Section 81(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act or Rule 172 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules do not provide for levy of fee, there are other provisions in the Act and Rules, authorising such levy. For example, Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dealing with cancellation and suspension of permits, provide in Sub Section 5 thereof, that the Transport **WPC 9385/08** **:5 :** Authority may realise from the permit holder certain sum of money agreed by him in lieu of cancellation or suspension of permit and recover the same from the permit holder, where a permit is liable to be cancelled or suspended under Section 86(1)(a) or (b) or (c). Rule 186 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules provides for recovery of the sum of money specified in the table thereto, in lieu of cancellation or suspension of permit under Section 86(5) and the procedure thereof. 10. Further, it also needs to be noticed that one of the grounds specified in Section 86(1) (a) for cancellation or suspension of permit is the breach of any of the general conditions of the permit specified in Section 84 or any of the other conditions contained in the permit, which are indicated in Section 72(2), and Rules 148 to 153, 155 and 156 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Delay in applying for renewal of permit is not a breach of any of the conditions of the permit specified in any of the above noted provisions. 11. It is thus evident that whereever the legislature wanted to authorise the RTA to realise compounding fee, specific provisions have been made in the statute itself authorising the RTA to levy such fee. That **WPC 9385/08** **:6 :** apart, levy of compounding fee, being in the nature of a penalty, can be imposed only if there is an express provision of law authorising such levy. In so far as Section 81(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, there is absolutely no enabling provision in the statute, and in which case, the RTA has no power to levy compounding fee on an operator who makes a belated application for renewal of his permit. 12. In so far as the judgment of this court reported in **Firoz v. RTA, Malappuram (1997(2) KLT 110)** relied on by the learned Government Pleader is concerned, that judgment only lays down the principle that there is no absolute right on an applicant to insist on the renewal of permit granted in his favour. Though there is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in that judgment, in so far as the controversy involved in this writ petition is concerned, the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment has no application. 13. In view of the position as above, I should accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I hold that the imposition of compounding fee as per Ext.P4 was totally unauthorised. For that reason, I quash Ext.P6 and direct that the 2[nd] respondent shall **WPC 9385/08** ## **:7 :** endorse the renewal granted to the petitioner by Ext.P4 without insisting on the petitioner making any further remittance. Endorsement shall be made, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. **ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE** Rp