G. R. BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) -IN this writ petition under Article 226 filed by the Joint Action Committee of Bengal Taxi Association, Calcutta Taxi Association, Calcutta Taxi Operators Association, Taxi Drivers' Union and Calcutta Metropolitan Taxi Drivers' Union, the petitioners have come for relief mainly in respect of two grievances highlighted by them. These two grievances are, (1) on the ground of broken seal of taxi meter the Motor Vehicles Authorities are indiscriminately demanding and realising payment of a fine of Rs. 500/- by coercion, and (2) the Motor Vehicles Authorities are refusing to accept fees and taxes such as, road tax, permit fees, C. P. fees etc. until and unless the fine imposed by them is paid, thereby causing severe harassment and inconvenience to the taxi owners, drivers and commuters. The petitioners have also voiced a more disturbing grievance in paragraph 14 of the writ petition and paragraph 11 of the affidavit-in-reply about corrupt practice stated to be prevailing in the Motor Vehicles Department and have even invited the court to take judicial notice of the malpractices stated to be apparent in that Department. ( 2 ) IT is the contention of the petitioners that the seals of the taxi meters are so weak and fragile that they get easily broken or are found to be missing even due to natural causes or due to unnoticed interference by street unchins and others for which the drivers or owners have no responsibility but the Motor Vehicles Department is indiscriminately demanding and realising fine of Rs. 500/- in each case where the seal of a taxi meter is found broken or missing without ascertaining the cause as to why the seal is broken or missing and whether the driver or the owner is responsible for the same. The petitioners have also challenged the right of the Motor Vehicles Authorities to realise fine in that manner. On the other hand, the respondents are trying to justify realisation of 'fine' under section 86 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with rule 262 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The petitioners have also challenged the right of the Motor Vehicles Authorities to realise fine in that manner. On the other hand, the respondents are trying to justify realisation of 'fine' under section 86 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with rule 262 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In paragraph-6 of the affidavit-in-opposition it is stated that breaking or tampering of seals of taxi meters is an offence for breach of rule 262 of the W. B. M. V. Rules, 1989 and that such breach of rule is treated as a breach of condition embodied in the permit and for such breach of condition there is a penal provision contained in section 86 (5) of the M. V. Act, 1988 and accordingly the R. T. A. , Calcutta Region has adopted a resolution in its meeting held on November 17, 1988 to impose a penalty of Rs. 500/- in each case of breaking of or tampering with seal. ( 3 ) NOW the question is whether for broken seal the Motor Vehicles Authorities can unilaterally realise a fine of Rs. 500/- or any amount under section 86 (5) of the M. V. Act. Rule 262 of the W. B. M. V. Rules, 1989 contains provisions regarding taxi meters in respect of motor cabs in certain areas mentioned therein including Calcutta. Sub-rule (4) of the said rule 262 provides that any owner, driver, attendant or other person who shall break or in any way tamper with the seal placed on the taxi-meter or the driving mechanism thereof, or who shall, with intent to deceive, tamper with the taxi-meter or the driving mechanism thereof, shall be deemed to have committed a breach of this rule. The conditions of permit for taxi is stated to contain a specific clause that the permit holder shall comply with all the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Rules and any breach of rules shall be treated as a breach of a condition of the permit. The conditions of permit for taxi is stated to contain a specific clause that the permit holder shall comply with all the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Rules and any breach of rules shall be treated as a breach of a condition of the permit. Therefore if any Owner, driver, attendant or any other person breaks or tampers with the seal of a taxi-meter, he commits a breach of rule 262 of the W. B. M. V. Rules, 1989 in view of sub-rule (4) of the said rule and thereby violates a clause of the permit granted for plying the taxi, namely, the clause that requires the permit holder to comply with the provisions of the M. V. Rules. Section 177 of the M. V. Act, 1988 provides that whoever contravenes any provision of the Act or my rule, regulation or notification made thereunder shall, if no penalty is provided for the offence, be punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to Rs. 100/- and for any second or subsequent offence with fine which may extend to Rs. 300/ -. The offence of the breaking of or tampering with the seal of the taxi meter will attract punishment under section 177 of the Act, but that punishment can be imposed by Court and not by the officers of the M. V. Department. As we have seen, the breaking of or tampering with the seal of the taxi meter constitutes a breach of rule 262 of the W. B. M. V. Rules and a violation of a condition of the permit and therefore such act attracts the provision of section 86 (1) (a) of the M. V. Act, 1988 which authorises the transport authority which granted the permit to cancel or suspend the same inter alia on the breach of any condition contained in the permit. The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 86 however requires that before cancelling or suspending any permit on any of the grounds mentioned in the said sub-section an opportunity has to be given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation. The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 86 however requires that before cancelling or suspending any permit on any of the grounds mentioned in the said sub-section an opportunity has to be given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation. Sub-section (5) of section 86 which is relied upon in his connection on behalf of the respondents runs thus :-" (5) Where a permit is liable to be cancelled or suspended under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (e) of sub-section (1) and the transport authority is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case, it would not be necessary or expedient so to cancel or suspend the permit if the holder of the permit agrees to pay a certain sum of money, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the transport authority may, instead of cancelling or suspending the permit, as the case may be, recover from the holder of the permit the sum of money agreed upon". ( 4 ) OBVIOUSLY a plain reading of sub-section (5) of section 86 will show that the transport authority has not been empowered to impose any fine or penalty under the said sub-section nor has such authority been vested with any power to levy any amount or to unilaterally fix any sum of money for realisation under the said sub-section. The question of realisation of any money under the said sub-section will arise only if the person from whom it is sought to be realised agrees to pay the same. There is no doubt that the transport authority may, as a matter of general policy, propose a specific mount for realisation under sub-section (5) of section 86 but unless such proposal is accepted or agreed upon by the person concerned the same cannot he recovered under the said sub-section. If the person concerned doe. not agree to pay the proposed amount the transport authority cannot insist upon payment of the same and in that event such authority can only initiate action for cancellation or suspension of permit and for that purpose call for an explanation from the person concerned under the proviso to section 86 (1 ). If the person concerned doe. not agree to pay the proposed amount the transport authority cannot insist upon payment of the same and in that event such authority can only initiate action for cancellation or suspension of permit and for that purpose call for an explanation from the person concerned under the proviso to section 86 (1 ). ( 5 ) THE breaking of or tampering with a seal of taxi meter as we have seen, also constitutes an offence punishable under section 117 of the Act and such an offence is also compoundable under Rule 349 of the W. B. M. V. Rules, 1989 read with section 200 of the Act. But in the case of compounding of the offence also the amount to be paid has to be agreed upon. Therefore the position in any view of the matter comes to this that for breaking of or tampering with the seal of the taxi-meter the transport authority can not recover any amount either by way of composition of the offence punishable under section 177 of tile Act or by way of an action alternative to Cancellation or suspension of permit under section 86 of the Act, unless the person front whom the amount is sought to be realised agrees to pay the same. Even if as a matter of general policy the transport authority demands Rs. 500/- for recovery outlet section 86 (5) of the Act the same is nothing but only proposal and unless the proposal is accepted by the person concerned and he agrees to pay the amount the transport authority cannot insist upon recovery or realisation of the same under section 86 (5 ). In the event the Person concerned does not agree to pay the proposed amount of Rs. 500/- or whatever amount may it be, the transport authority will be acting wholly contrary to law if such authority still insists on realising the amount directly by force or threat or by taking recourse to any sort of indirect or coercivemethod, like refusal to accept road tax or other fees payable. 500/- or whatever amount may it be, the transport authority will be acting wholly contrary to law if such authority still insists on realising the amount directly by force or threat or by taking recourse to any sort of indirect or coercivemethod, like refusal to accept road tax or other fees payable. If the Person concerned does not agree to pay the proposed amount the transport authority may be at liberty to proceed under section 86 (1) to initiate proceeding !o, cancellation or suspension of permit and may even take appropriate Proceeding in court for prosecution for the offence punishable under section 177 of the M. N. Act, 1988. ( 6 ) AS regards the general allegation of corruption as made by the petitioners the same cannot be adequately dealt with unless specific instances of corruption are brought to light. However even general allegation of corruption and malpractices, if it continues to be consistently articulated for long is likely to expose the concerned department to disgraceful suspicion in public mind and thereby tarnish its credibility in the matter of discharge of assigned responsibilities. In public interest as well as in the interest of the department itself it is therefore highly desirable that the departmental authorities should look into the matter with circumspection for ascertaining whether there is any truth in such general allegation and to take steps to plug the loop-holes of malpractices, if there be any. The petitioners are granted the liberty to make representation to the R. T. A. Calcutta Region about their grievances regarding malpractices as well as regarding the fragile and weak nature of meter seals and on such representation being made the R. T. A. will consider the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the representatives of the petitioners and take such steps in respect of such matters as may be considered necessary. The respondents are directed not to insist on recovery of Rs. 500/-or any amount from any person under section 86 (5) of the M. V. Act, 1988 unless the person concerned agrees to pay the proposed amount. The respondents are directed not to insist on recovery of Rs. 500/-or any amount from any person under section 86 (5) of the M. V. Act, 1988 unless the person concerned agrees to pay the proposed amount. It is further directed that if the person concerned does not agree to pay the proposed amount for breaking of or tampering with seal of taxi meter the respondents shall not insist upon the realisation of the same by taking recourse to any coercive measure like non-acceptance of road tax or other fees or by any other means whatsoever. The authorities concerned however will be at full liberty to take action in accordance with law for breaking of or tampering with seal of taxi meter. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No cost is ordered. ( 7 ) IN view of the order passed in the main writ matter explaining the entire legal position, it is not necessary to deal with the contempt application at this stage, as the respondents are now expected and required to act in accordance with the order I have passed in the writ application. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY the contempt application and all pending applications stand disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on a xerox signed copy of this judgment and order upon usual undertaking. Petition disposed of.