ORDER: By consent, main writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. One M.Ramalingam, the President of Tamil Nadu Auto, Taxi, Van, Tempo Van Owners and Drivers Welfare Union, aggrieved by the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.628, Home (TPT VII) Department, dated 28.4.1995 has filed the above writ petition to quash the same as arbitrary and unreasonable and for a direction to the respondents not to collect spot fine in so far as the Madurai City is concerned. 3. According to the petitioner, he is a President of Tamilnadu Auto, Taxi, Van, Tempo Van Owners and Drivers Welfare Union having its office at Madurai. It is stated that the Government of Tamilnadu by way of impugned Government Order, has granted unfettered powers to the Officers of the Transport Department for levying spot fine. The authorities empowered to levy and collect fines are biased in their decisions and hence, the petitioner has no say in the matter due to the undue interest shown by the authorities favouring the collection of fines for the Government without following the principles of natural justice. 4. It is further stated that the members of the petitioner- Association are being harassed by the authorities who have pecuniary interest in the matter of levy of spot fine and the acts committed by them are not exercised judicially. It is also stated that the proceeding before the authorities is neither a judicial proceeding nor a quasi judicial proceeding and hence the vesting of unfettered, enormous and oppressive powers infringe the petitioners valuable right of human dignity and self-respect. With these averments, the Union has prayed for interference by this Court. 5. The respondents 1 and 4 have filed a separate counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit of the first respondent, it is stated that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.875, Home, dated 1.4.1986 notified that the officials of the Police and Transport Department be empowered to enforce the provisions of Sec.127-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to compound the traffic offences. The compounding fee for various offences had also been specified in that notification. A similar provision is also made in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Government also issued fresh notification in G.O.Ms.No.1191, Home, dated 1.7.1989. The compounding fee for various offences had also been specified in that notification. A similar provision is also made in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Government also issued fresh notification in G.O.Ms.No.1191, Home, dated 1.7.1989. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.1767, Home, dated 28.10.1992 reintroduced the spot fine system in Chennai City at first and thereafter it was extended to Madurai and Coimbatore in G.O.Ms.No.628, Home, dated 28.4.1995 to book the traffic offences in the Metropolitan cities. The instance of the impugned Government Order is to enforce the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. It is further stated that as per Sec.200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 any offence whether committed before or after the Act punishable under Secs.177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183(1)(2), 184, 186, 189, 191, 192, 194, 196 and 198 may either before or after the institution of the prosecution be compounded by such officers or authorities and for such amount as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify in this behalf. Accordingly, the Government have passed the impugned Government Order authorising the Police Officers not below the rank of Inspector of Police to compound offences committed under the said Act in the city of Madurai and Coimbatore and also authorised the offences of the Transport Department not below the rank of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Non-Technical) in the check posts of Transport Department. Similar submissions have been made by the fourth respondent in his counter affidavit dated 8.1.1997. 7. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 8. Though several contentions have been raised in the light of the statutory provisions from the Motor Vehicles Act which enables the Government to introduce the spot fine system and in the light of the particulars and informations furnished by the respondents 1 and 4 in their counter affidavits, I am unable to accept the grievance expressed by the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Government he no power to issue the impugned Government Order, which only enables the Police Officers not below the rank of Inspector of Police and the Officers of the Transport Department not below the rank of Motor Vehicles Inspector to compound the traffic offences. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Government he no power to issue the impugned Government Order, which only enables the Police Officers not below the rank of Inspector of Police and the Officers of the Transport Department not below the rank of Motor Vehicles Inspector to compound the traffic offences. It is also clear that if the person is aggrieved over the spot fine of the Traffic Officer and not willing to compound the offence, he has every right to approach the Court for such offence. It is also stated by the respondents 1 and 4 that the spot fine system was introduced in Chennai City from 1992 and according to them, the public have appreciated. It is also clear that if the offender is not willing to compound the offence, it is always open to him to face the prosecution before the concerned Court. 9. In the light of the statutory provision which enables the Government to authorise the officers of the Police and Traffic Department to impose spot fine, I do not find any merit in the claim made by the petitioner- Union. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the W.M.P.Nos.17962 and 17963 of 1996 are also dismissed.