Judgment :- 1. The Writ Petitions relate to levy of compounding fee. Facts and legal submissions are being identical, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 2. Facts leading to Writ Petitions are as follows: The petitioners are goods carriage operators, operating their vehicles bearing Registration Nos.TN-27/A-9997, TAL-2397, TDM-2797, MDK-2292, TSH-6577, TN-25-V-0455, TN-09-3-3705 (in W.P.No. 2705 and 2706 of 2001) and TN-04/D-9199, TN-04/D-5455, TN-28/A-9365, TN-09/C-4419, TN-41-A-2655 and TN-04-A-7977 (in W.P. No. 3256 of 2001) with valid permits. According to them, they were paying Motor Vehicles Tax for the above vehicles regularly, as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules. The vehicles are covered by valid Fitness and Insurance Certificates. While the matter stood thus, the third respondent has issued a Circular No.13 of 1994, in Letter No. 76251/G3/92, dated 05.02.1994, as to how compounding fee should be levied. Thereafter, Circular No. 70/99 in R.No. H3/118206/98, dated 28.07.1999, has been issued, prescribing a uniform compounding fee to be levied by the Transport Authority within the State of Tamil Nadu. Aggrieved by the said Circulars, the petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petitions. 3. Mr. N. Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the third respondent has failed to follow the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder, particularly Section 86(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 206 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. He further submitted that the third respondent should be allowed to exercise his jurisdiction in determining the compounding fee without reference to the circulars of the Transport Commissioner. He further submitted that when the third respondent has got powers to take action independently on the check report under Section 86(5) of the Act read with Rule 206 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, the directions set out in the impugned Circulars, restricting the powers of the third respondent in determining the quantum of compounding fee is wholly illegal and arbitrary. According to the learned counsel, the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, the second respondent herein cannot direct his subordinates to maintain uniformity in levying compounding fee throughout the State, which would lead to non-application of mind by his subordinates and failure to exercise their quasi-judicial functions. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. According to the learned counsel, the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, the second respondent herein cannot direct his subordinates to maintain uniformity in levying compounding fee throughout the State, which would lead to non-application of mind by his subordinates and failure to exercise their quasi-judicial functions. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the State Government to prescribe conditions for issue of permits for transport vehicles by the State or Regional Transport Authorities and the authorities may prohibit or restrict the use of such vehicle in any area or route. Any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department authorised by the State Government under Section 114 of the Act shall, if he has reason to believe that a goods vehicle or trailer is being used in contravention of Section 113, require the driver to verify the weight of the vehicle. Chapter 13 of the Motor vehicles Act deals with the offences, penalties and procedure and as per Section 177 of the Act, whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any 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/-. Section 178 of the Act deals with the penalty for travelling without pass or ticket and for dereliction of duty on the part of conductor and for refusal to ply a contract carriage, etc., a fine, which may extend to Rs.500/- can be levied. Section 179 deals with the disobedience of orders, obstruction and refusal of information, which is punishable with fine, which may extend to Rs.500/-. There are other provisions dealing with specific offences, for which, fine amount is prescribed under the Rules and there are certain offences where punishment of imprisonment is also provided apart from fine. Section 179 deals with the disobedience of orders, obstruction and refusal of information, which is punishable with fine, which may extend to Rs.500/-. There are other provisions dealing with specific offences, for which, fine amount is prescribed under the Rules and there are certain offences where punishment of imprisonment is also provided apart from fine. In so far as, driving the vehicle exceeding the permissible weight, penalty is provided under Section 194 of the Act and it reads as follows: "(1) whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Section 113 or Section 114 or Section 115 shall be punishable with minimum fine of two thousand rupees and an additional amount of one thousand rupees per tonne of excess load, together with the liability to pay charges for off-loading of the excess load. (2) Any driver of a vehicle who refuses to stop and submit his vehicle to weighing after being directed to do so by an officer authorised in this behalf under Section 114 or removes or causes the removal of the load or part of it prior to weighing shall be punishable with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees." 6. Section 200 of the Act deals with the composition of certain offences and it reads as follows: "(1) Any offence whether committed before or after the commencement of this Act punishable under Section 177, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180, Section 181, Section 182, sub-Section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 183, Section 184, Section 186, Section 189, sub-section (2) of Section 190, Section 191, Section 192, Section 194, Section 196 or Section 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. (2) Where an offence has been compounded under sub-section (1), the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of such offence." 7. A conjoint reading of Sections 113 to 115, 194 and 200 makes it clear that for contravention of the above provisions, a minimum fine that can be imposed against the holder of the permit is Rs.2,000/- and an additional amount of Rs.1,000/- per tonne for excess load. A conjoint reading of Sections 113 to 115, 194 and 200 makes it clear that for contravention of the above provisions, a minimum fine that can be imposed against the holder of the permit is Rs.2,000/- and an additional amount of Rs.1,000/- per tonne for excess load. As a measure to check of overloading by goods vehicles and to maintain uniformity in the collection of compounding fee, the Transport Commissioner has issued instructions in the form of impugned Circulars, viz., Circular No.13/94, dated 05.02.1994 and Circular No.70/99, dated 27.08.1999, which are extracted hereunder: Circular No.13/94 Sir, Sub. Motor Vehicles — Issue of Check report and taking disciplinary action — Compounding fee — Certain instructions — issued. Ref This Office Lr. No.76251/G3/92 (Circular No.70/93) dt. 20.093. In continuation of the Circular No.70/93, dated 20.10.93 the following revised instructions are issued: During the meeting of Zonal Deputy Transport Commissioners convened by Transport Commissioner on 112. 93, some of the Deputy Transport Commissioners have raised the following points: Point 1: Item No.8 in the annexure, compounding fee need not be collected if the permit holder produces the original records or attested copy of records within 15 days from the date of charge under Section 130 as given under Rule 139 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. Point 2: Whether compounding fee has to be collected for the office for not carrying records at the time of check, even if the records are produced within 15 days. Clarification: Compounding fee has to be collected even if the permit holder produces the original records or attested copies of the records within 15 days as contemplated under provision to sub-section (4) of Section 130 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and according to Rules 139 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. Accordingly, Compounding fee has been fixed for the office of not carrying records at the time of check through the records were found valid on the date of check. Point 3: Driver not in uniform Clarification: This condition is not included in the list of permit conditions. But there is a condition that the drivers of Transport Vehicles shall carry AVT Form as per Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. Hence for Item No.18 in the annexure for the words "driver not in uniform" the following words are substituted in the revised annexure "driver not carrying AVT form". But there is a condition that the drivers of Transport Vehicles shall carry AVT Form as per Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. Hence for Item No.18 in the annexure for the words "driver not in uniform" the following words are substituted in the revised annexure "driver not carrying AVT form". Point 4 : Total amount of compounding fee that can be imposed for several offences in one check report should not exceed the maximum amount prescribed under Rule 206 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Clarification: According to Proviso to Rule 206 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the compounding fee to be recoverable in lieu of suspension in no case less than the minimum or more than the maximum even if the check report consists of various offences. Hence all the checking officers are informed that they should bear the above Rule in mind while issuing check reports. They are also requested to mention the compounding fee that has to be collected, for all the offences detected in one check report and see that compounding fee so specified in the check report does not exceed the maximum amount as per Rule 206 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. A revised annexure showing the compounding fee to be collected in lieu of suspension and the period of suspension (i.e., the number of days shown) to be ordered is enclosed. The checking officers should revise the wordings in the rubber stamp to be affixed in the check reports to indicate that the permit is liable for suspension for days in lieu of which permit holder can compound the offence by remitting Rs. as compounding fees within 14 days. The number of days of suspension and the amount of compounding fee should be in accordance with the revised annexure enclosed. The Deputy Transport Commissioners are requested to acknowledge the receipt of this Circular together with its enclosure by return of post without fail. They are also requested to obtain acknowledgements from the other Regional Transport Officers and checking officers including Motor Vehicles Inspectors (Non-Technical) under their control for having received this circular and file them in their offices. Sd/- N. Athimoolam, Transport Commissioner. Circular No. 70/99 R.No.H3/118206/98 Dated: 27.08.99 Sub: Motor Vehicles – Measures to check overloading by goods vehicles – Collection of compounding fee – Uniformity – Instructions issued – regarding. Sd/- N. Athimoolam, Transport Commissioner. Circular No. 70/99 R.No.H3/118206/98 Dated: 27.08.99 Sub: Motor Vehicles – Measures to check overloading by goods vehicles – Collection of compounding fee – Uniformity – Instructions issued – regarding. Ref :Amended Section 194 of M.V. Act, dated 111. 1999 (2) This office circular No.44/97, dated 01.05.1997. It is observed that some of the Regional Transport Officers are not collecting the compounding fee and fine uniformly for the offences of overloading by goods vehicle as prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. Hence the following instructions are issued for collecting the compounding fee for overloading by goods vehicles uniformly. As per the amended Section 194 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a fine of Rs.2000 shall be collected for the offence of over load and in addition to the fine, a compounding fee of Rs.1,000 per tonne of over load has to be collected subject to a maximum of Rs.5,000 as per Rule 206 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Taking note of the above Proviso, all the Regional Transport Authorities, Secretary to Regional Transport Inspectors (Non-Technical) at the check posts are requested to adopt the system of imposing compounding fee in lieu of suspension under Rule 206 at the following rates on goods vehicles found plying with overload: (1) overloading upto 0.5 Tonne may let off with a warning (2) Overloading by 0.6 tonne Rs.2,500 compounding to 1 tonne fee in lieu of suspension for 5 days (3) Overloading by 1.1 tonne Rs.3,000 compounding to 1.5 tonne fee in lieu of suspension for 6 days (4) Overloading by 1.16 tonne Rs.3,500 compounding to 2 tonnes fee in lieu of suspension for 7 days (5) Overloading by 2.1 tonnes Rs.4,000 compounding to 2.5 tonnes fee in lieu of suspension for 8 days (6) Overloading by 2.6 tonnes Rs.4,500 compounding to 3 tonnes fee in lieu of suspension for 9 days (7) Overloading in excess of Rs.5,000 compounding 3 tonnes fee in lieu of suspension for 10 days Powers given under the Act and Rules to direct the Lorry driver/owner to unload the cargo may also be exercised when necessary having regard of the nature of the cargo, place of detention and available facilities for unloading. All the Deputy Transport Commissioners are requested to acknowledge the receipt of the circular and also requested to obtain and keep the acknowledgments from respective Regional Transport officer of their zone. S/d.M.B. Pranesh Transport Commissioner, Chennai-5. 8. In P. Ratnakar Rao v. Government of A.P., 1996 (5) SCC 359 , certain owners of the goods Motor Vehicles plying the same on the basis of pucca National/State permits issued by the appropriate Transport Authorities, challenged the validity of Government Order issued by the Department of the Transport (Roads and Buildings), enhancing the compounding fee from Rs.10 per kg to Rs.100 per kg, as being violative of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The contention raised before the Supreme Court was that when the discretion is given to the Court for compounding an offence for the amount mentioned under Section 200, it cannot be stratified by specified amount and that the exercise of power to prescribe maximum rates for compounding of an offence is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While rejecting the said argument, the Supreme Court at Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment, held as follows: "We find no force in the contention. For violation of Sections 113 to 115, Section 194 accords penal sanction and on conviction for violation thereof, the Section sanctions punishment with fine as has been enumerated hereinbefore. The Section would give guidance to the State Government as a delegate under the statute to specify the amount for compounding the offences enumerated under sub-section (1) of Section 200. It is not mandatory that the authorized officer would always compound the offence. It is conditional upon the willingness of the accused to have the offences compounded. It may also be done before the institution of the prosecution case. In the event of the petitioners willing to have the offence compounded, the authorised officer gets jurisdiction and authority to compound the offence and call upon the accused to pay the same. On compliance thereof, the proceedings, if already instituted, would be closed or no further proceedings shall be initiated. It is a matter of volition or offence or willingness on the part of the accused either to accept compounding of the offence or to face the prosecution in the appropriate Court. On compliance thereof, the proceedings, if already instituted, would be closed or no further proceedings shall be initiated. It is a matter of volition or offence or willingness on the part of the accused either to accept compounding of the offence or to face the prosecution in the appropriate Court. As regards canalisation and prescription of the amount of fine for the offences committed, Section 194, the penal and charging Section prescribes the maximum outer limit within which the compounding fee would be prescribed. The discretion exercised by the delegated legislation, i.e., the executive is controlled by the specification in the Act. It is not necessary that Section 200 itself should contain the details in that behalf. So long as the compounding fee does not exceed the fine prescribed by the penal section, the same cannot be declared to be either exorbitant or irrational or bereft of guidance. 5. It would therefore, be clear that the Government as a delegate, did not exceed its power under Section 200 of the Act in prescribing the compounding fee for the offence punishable under Section 194 of the Act." 9. In M. Ramalingam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2000 (3) LW 730 , the President of Tamil Nadu Auto, Taxi, Van, Tempo Van Owners and Drivers Welfare Union, challenged G.O.Ms. No.628 Home (TPT VII) Department, dated 28.04.1995, prescribing spot fine for violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and for enforcement of provisions of Section 127(3) of the 1939 Act. In the light of the statutory provisions enabling the Government to introduce spot fine scheme and having regard to the option of the holder of the permit or refuse compounding of an offence or to face prosecution before the concerned Court, this Court found that there was no merit in the Writ Petition filed by the above said Union and accordingly, upheld the Government Order. 10. The power to issue the impugned Circulars is traceable to Sections 194 and 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as per Section 194, whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Sections 113 to 115 shall be punishable with maximum fine of Rs.5,000/- as per Rule 206 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. 11. 11. Compounding an offence is left to the absolute discretion of the Transport Authorities, depending upon the nature of gravity of the charges and frequency of the offence committed, etc. Compounding of an offence is done on the volition of the offender to pay the fine amount. If the holder of the permit is not willing to compound the offence, it is always open to him to contest the prosecution before the competent Court. A permit holder alleged to have violated the penal provisions of the statute has no statutory right to demand that the fine amount should be within a prescribed limit. 12. Section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is a specific provision for suspension/cancellation of the permit for the reasons contained therein. Section 86(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows: "(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." 13. Bare reading of Section 86(5) makes it clear that an option is given to the permit holder to offer his willingness to compound in lieu of suspension and it is for the permit issuing authority to consider the request depending upon the gravity of charges, previous penalties, repetition of offences and such other relevant factors. As stated supra, compounding is not for mere asking and it is done at the discretion of the authority and the holder of the permit, who has violated the permit conditions, has no statutory or legal right to demand that the discretion should be exercised in the manner as suggested by him. 14. As stated supra, compounding is not for mere asking and it is done at the discretion of the authority and the holder of the permit, who has violated the permit conditions, has no statutory or legal right to demand that the discretion should be exercised in the manner as suggested by him. 14. Rule 206 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules states that the Transport Authority shall in determining the sum of money to be recovered in lieu of cancellation or suspension of different classes of permits, have regard to the following namely: (a) nature, gravity and frequency of the offence committed; (b) the quantum of punishment that would otherwise have been imposed; and (c) earning capacity of the vehicles with reference to the nature of the route and passengers capacity in the case of stage carriage and average daily kilometreage of the vehicle and hire charges, if any, in respect of other classes of transport vehicles. As per the table for the violation of overloading by goods carriages, the minimum amount to be recovered in lieu of suspension per day is Rs.100/- and the maximum for the whole period of suspension is Rs.5,000/-. 15. Violation or contravention of the permit conditions is punishable under Section 177 to 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Violation of Section 194, if proved, automatically attracts fine, subject to the maximum of Rs.5,000/-as per Rule 206 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The reason for issuing the impugned Circulars is to maintain uniformity in the levy and collection of compounding fee, for the offences of overloading by goods vehicle. The State Transport Commissioner is empowered to coordinate and regulate the activities of the Transport Authorities and also settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Transport Commissioner is empowered to prescribe a uniform amount of compounding fee for the offence of overloading by goods vehicles, within the maximum outer limit permissible under law. The exercise of the power by the Transport Commissioner cannot be termed as unguided, uncanalised or arbitrary. I do not see any infringement of a legal or statutory right. The impugned Circulars are in conformity with statute and therefore, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.