JUDGMENT : 1. W.P.(C)No.2583 of 2018:- The petitioner, who is the registered owner of a Heavy Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KL-40/F-7917, covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration and Ext.P2 goods carriage permit, which is stated to have been surrendered before the respondent on 10/01/2018, has approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application dated 17/01/2018 for grant of no objection certificate under Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for brevity, 'MV Act'), without insisting on the petitioner clearing any pending check reports in the light of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 58 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'CMV Rules') and following the law laid down by this Court in State of Kerala and another v. C.P. Varghese [ 2017 (4) KHC 106 ] and Ext.P7 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13/12/2017 in W.A.No.2554 of 2017. According to the petitioner, he had made arrangements for transferring the ownership of the aforesaid vehicle in the name of one Imran Pasha and the proposed transferee resides within the jurisdiction of the Registering Authority, Bangalore Central, Karnataka. Ext.P3 is a copy of the surrender intimation dated 10/01/2018 in respect of Ext.P2 goods carriage permit, which has been acknowledged by the respondent on 10/01/2018 itself. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application before the respondent in the prescribed form along with Ext.P5 covering letter dated 18/01/2018, enclosing therewith Ext.P1 certificate of registration and other supporting documents, including Ext.P6 certificate dated 17/01/2018 issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor under sub-section (5) of Section 48 of the MV Act,. The respondent acknowledged the receipt of Ext. P5 covering letter with its enclosures on 18/01/2018 itself. 2. The respondent acknowledged the receipt of Ext. P5 covering letter with its enclosures on 18/01/2018 itself. 2. W.P.(C)No.2643 of 2018:-The petitioner, who is the registered owner of a Heavy Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11/AH-3690, covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration and Ext.P2 goods carriage permit, which is stated to have been surrendered before the respondent on 10/01/2018, has approached this Court in this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application dated 17/01/2018 for grant of no objection certificate under Section 48 of the MV Act, without insisting on the petitioner clearing any pending check reports in the light of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 58 of the CMV Rules and following the law laid down by this Court in C.P. Varghese's case (supra) and Ext.P7 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13/12/2017 in W.A.No.2554 of 2017. According to the petitioner, he had made arrangements for transferring the ownership of the aforesaid vehicle in the name of one Rizwan Pasha and the proposed transferee resides within the jurisdiction of the Registering Authority, Bangalore Central, Karnataka. Ext.P3 is a copy of the surrender intimation dated 10/01/2018 in respect of Ext.P2 goods carriage permit, which has been acknowledged by the respondent on 10/01/2018 itself. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application before the respondent in the prescribed form along with Ext.P5 covering letter dated 18/01/2018, enclosing therewith Ext.P1 certificate of registration and other supporting documents, including Ext.P6 certificate dated 17/01/2018 issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor under sub-section (5) of Section 48 of the MV Act,. The respondent acknowledged the receipt of Ext. P5 covering letter with its enclosures on 18/01/2018 itself. 3. The respondent acknowledged the receipt of Ext. P5 covering letter with its enclosures on 18/01/2018 itself. 3. W.P.(C)No.2942 of 2018:-The petitioner, who is the registered owner of a Heavy Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KL-40/F-5112, covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration and Ext.P2 goods carriage permit, which is stated to have been surrendered before the respondent on 10/01/2018, has approached this Court in this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application dated 17/01/2018 for grant of no objection certificate under Section 48 of the MV Act, without insisting on the petitioner clearing any pending check reports in the light of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 58 of the CMV Rules and following the law laid down by this Court in C.P. Varghese's case (supra) and Ext.P7 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13/12/2017 in W.A.No.2554 of 2017. According to the petitioner, he had made arrangements for transferring the ownership of the aforesaid vehicle in the name of one Subramani and the proposed transferee resides within the jurisdiction of the Registering Authority, Bangalore Central, Karnataka. Ext.P3 is a copy of the surrender intimation dated 10/01/2018 in respect of Ext.P2 goods carriage permit, which has been acknowledged by the respondent on 10/01/2018 itself. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application before the respondent in the prescribed form along with Ext.P5 covering letter dated 18/01/2018, enclosing therewith Ext.P1 certificate of registration and other supporting documents, including Ext.P6 certificate dated 17/01/2018 issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Perumbavoor under sub-section (5) of Section 48 of the MV Act,. The respondent acknowledged the receipt of Ext. P5 covering letter with its enclosures on 18/01/2018 itself. 4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit in W.P. (C)No.2942 of 2018, contending that Exts.R1(a) to R1(g) check reports are pending against Heavy Goods Vehicle bearing registration No. KL-40/F-5112 and the said fact has already been intimated to the petitioner, as evident from Ext.R1(h) and R1(i) acknowledgement cards. Though the petitioner has surrendered Ext.P2 goods carriage permit along with Ext.P3 surrender intimation, Rule 183 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'KMV Rules') does not provide for cancellation of permit without passing an order by the concerned authority, especially in a case where commission of offence was detected by the transport authorities. Though the petitioner has surrendered Ext.P2 goods carriage permit along with Ext.P3 surrender intimation, Rule 183 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'KMV Rules') does not provide for cancellation of permit without passing an order by the concerned authority, especially in a case where commission of offence was detected by the transport authorities. According to the respondent, the vehicle which is the subject matter of Ext.P4 application for no objection certificate is involved in the commission of offence on several occasions, which is a material object and material evidence while prosecuting the petitioner for the offence alleged. 5. Exts.R1(a) to R1(g) are the check reports dated 13/11/2013, 17/12/2013, 12/02/2014, 03/03/2015, 04/07/2015, 17/06/2016 and 03/10/2016. Out of 7 check reports, 6 check reports, i.e., Exts.R1(a) to R1(e) and R1(g) relate to commission of offence under sub-section (3) of Section 113 and sub-section (1) of Section 194 of MV Act. Ext.R1(f) check report relates to commission of offence under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the MV Act, punishable under Sections 180 and 181 of the said Act. As the petitioner was not willing to compound the offence, the respondent is going to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Though there is time limit for taking cognizance of an offence, as provided under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the Magistrate is empowered to grant extension of the period of limitation, under Section 473 of the said Code. 6. Since the vehicle is a material evidence, in exercise of the power under Section 207 of the MV Act, the authorised officer under Rule 405 of the KMV Rules was deputed to seize and detain the vehicle temporarily. However, the said officer vide Ext.R1(j) report dated 29/01/2018 has reported that the vehicle could not be found. In such circumstances, the respondent vide Ext.R1(k) request dated 05/02/2018 requested the Station House Officer, Pallikkara for assistance to seize the said vehicle. According to the respondent, if the vehicle is taken away to Bangalore, the respondent will not be in a position to successfully prosecute the petitioner for the offences alleged in the check reports and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondent. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondent. Though counter affidavit has been filed only in W.P.(C)No.2942 of 2018, the learned Senior Government Pleader advanced the very same contentions in W.P.(C) Nos.2583 of 2018 and 2643 of 2018 and pointed out that check reports similar to Exts.R1(a) to R1(f) are pending against the vehicles owned by the petitioners in these writ petitions. 8. Section 48 of the MV Act deals with no objection certificate. As per sub-section (1) of Section 48, the owner of a motor vehicle when applying for the assignment of a new registration mark under sub-section (1) of Section 47, or where the transfer of a motor vehicle is to be effected in a State other than the State of its registration, the transferor of such vehicle when reporting the transfer under sub-section (1) of Section 50, shall make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority by which the vehicle was registered for the issue of a no objection certificate, to the effect that the registering authority has no objection for assigning a new registration mark to the vehicle or, as the case may be, for entering the particulars of the transfer of ownership in the certificate of registration. 9. Sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 48 of the MV Act deal with the procedure to be followed by a registering authority on receipt of an application for no objection certificate under subsection (1) of Section 48. As per sub-section (2) of Section 48, the registering authority shall, on receipt of an application under subsection (1), issue a receipt in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government. As per sub-section (3), on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the registering authority may, after making such inquiry and requiring the applicant to comply with such directions as it deems fit and within thirty days of the receipt thereof, by order in writing, communicate to the applicant that it has granted or refused to grant the no objection certificate. Going by the proviso to sub-rule (3), a registering authority shall not refuse to grant the no objection certificate unless it has recorded in writing the reasons for doing so and a copy of the same has been communicated to the applicant. Going by the proviso to sub-rule (3), a registering authority shall not refuse to grant the no objection certificate unless it has recorded in writing the reasons for doing so and a copy of the same has been communicated to the applicant. As per sub-section (4), where within a period of thirty days referred to in sub-section (3), the registering authority does not refuse to grant the no objection certificate or does not communicate the refusal to the applicant, the registering authority shall be deemed to have granted the no objection certificate. 10. As per sub-section (5) of Section 48 of the MV Act, before granting or refusing to grant the no objection certificate, the registering authority shall obtain a report in writing from the police that no case relating to the theft of the motor vehicle concerned has been reported or is pending, verify whether all the amounts due to Government including road tax in respect of that motor vehicle have been paid, and take into account such other factors as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Going by subsection (6), the owner of the vehicle shall also inform at the earliest, in writing, the registering authority about the theft of his vehicle together with the name of the police station where the theft report was lodged, and the registering authority shall take into account such report while disposing of any application for no objection certificate, registration, transfer of ownership or issue of duplicate registration certificate. 11. Rule 58 of the CMV Rules deals with no objection certificate. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 58, an application for the issue of no objection certificate under Section 48 of the MV Act in respect of a motor vehicle shall be made in Form 28 to the registering authority by which the vehicle was previously registered, accompanied by (a) the certified copy of the certificate of registration; (b) the certified copy of the certificate of insurance; (c) evidence of payment of motor vehicle tax up-to-date; (d) where no tax is payable for a certain period a certificate from the tax collecting authority that no tax is due from the vehicle for the said period. Going by sub-rule (2) of Rule 58, in the case of a transport vehicle, in addition to the documents referred to in sub-rule (1), documentary evidence in respect of the following matters shall also be furnished, namely, (a) that the vehicle is not covered by any permit issued by any transport authority; (b) that the sum of money agreed upon to be paid by the holder of the permit under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 86, if any, is not pending recovery; (c) evidence of payment of tax on passengers and goods under any law for the time being in force upto the date of application for no objection certificate. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 58 provides that, on receipt of an application under sub-rule (1), the registering authority shall fill Part III of Form 28 and return that part to the applicant duly signed. Sub-rule (4) provides further that, where the registering authority grants or refuses to grant the no objection certificate, it shall return the duplicate copy of the said Form to the applicant and the triplicate copy to the other registering authority after duly filling and signing Part II thereof. 12. Section 84 of the MV Act deals with general conditions attaching to all permits. As per Section 84, the conditions enumerated in clause (a) to (g) thereof shall be conditions of every permit. As per clause (d) of Section 84, one such condition shall be that the vehicle to which the permit relates is not driven in contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or Section 113 of the MV Act. As per Section 5, no owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 (which deals with necessity of driving licence) or Section 4 (which deals with age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicle) to drive the vehicle. Section 113 of the MV Act deals with limits of weight and limitations of use of a transport vehicle. Section 113 of the MV Act deals with limits of weight and limitations of use of a transport vehicle. As per sub-section (3) of Section 113, no person shall drive or cause or allow to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle or trailer (a) the un-laden weight of which exceeds the un-laden weight specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle; or (b) the laden weight of which exceeds the gross vehicle weight specified in the certificate of registration. Sub-section (4) of Section 113 provides that, where the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer driven in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 113 (which mandates use of pneumatic tyres) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) is not the owner, a court may presume that the offence was committed with the knowledge of or under the orders of the owner of the motor vehicle or trailer. 13. Section 114 of the MV Act deals with the power to have vehicle weighed. As per sub-section (1) of Section 114, any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department authorised in this behalf by the State Government 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 convey the vehicle to a weighing device, if any, within a distance of ten kilometers from any point on the forward route or within a distance of twenty kilometers from the destination of the vehicle for weighment; and if on such weighment the vehicle is found to contravene in any respect the provisions of Section 113 regarding weight, he may, by order in writing, direct the driver to off-load the excess weight at his own risk and not to remove the vehicle or trailer from that place until the laden weight has been reduced or the vehicle or trailer has otherwise been dealt with so that it complies with Section 113 and on receipt of such notice, the driver shall comply with such directions. Sub-section (2) of Section 114 provides that, where the person authorised under sub-section (1) makes the said order in writing, he shall also endorse the relevant details of the overloading on the goods carriage permit and also intimate the fact of such endorsement to the authority which issued that permit. 14. Sub-section (2) of Section 114 provides that, where the person authorised under sub-section (1) makes the said order in writing, he shall also endorse the relevant details of the overloading on the goods carriage permit and also intimate the fact of such endorsement to the authority which issued that permit. 14. Chapter XIII of the MV Act deals with offences, penalties and procedures. As per Section 180, whoever, being the owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle, causes or permits, any other person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 to drive the vehicle shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. As per Section 181, whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 15. Section 194 of the MV Act deals with the offence of driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight. As per sub-section (1) of Section 194, 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 tone of excess load, together with the liability to pay charges for off loading of the excess load. As per sub-section (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. 16. Section 200 of the MV Act deals with composition of certain offences. 16. Section 200 of the MV Act deals with composition of certain offences. As per sub-section (1) of Section 200, any offence whether committed before or after the commencement of the MV Act punishable under Section 177, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180, Section 181, Section 182, sub-section (1) or subsection (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. As per sub-section (2) of Section 200, 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. 17. Section 86 of the MV Act deals with cancellation and suspension of permits. As per sub-section (1) of Section 86, the transport authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit, on the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) thereof. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) provides for cancellation and suspension of permit on the breach of any condition specified in Section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit. Clause (b) provides for such cancellation and suspension, if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit. Clause (e) provides for such cancellation and suspension, if the holder of the goods carriage permit, fails without reasonable cause, to use the vehicle for the purposes for which the permit was granted. Clause (e) provides for such cancellation and suspension, if the holder of the goods carriage permit, fails without reasonable cause, to use the vehicle for the purposes for which the permit was granted. As per sub-section (5) of Section 86, 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. Sub-section (6) of Section 86 provides that, the powers exercisable by the transport authority under sub-section (5) may, where an appeal has been preferred under Section 89, be exercised also by the appellate authority. 18. Rule 186 of the KMV Rules deals with recovery of sum of money in lieu of cancellation or suspension of permit under subsection (5) of Section 86 of the MV Act. As per clause (a) of Rule 186, the transport authority while passing an order of cancellation or suspension of a permit under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the MV Act shall specify (i) the sum of money payable by the permit holder in case he agrees for the composition; (ii) the date by which the permit holder should intimate acceptance of composition; (iii) the date by which the composition fee should be remitted and the chalan produced; and iv) the date from which the suspension or cancellation will take effect in case the composition fee is not paid within the date specified under clause (iii). As per clause (b) of Rule 186, the transport authority shall, in determining the sum of money to be recovered in lieu of cancellation or suspension of different classes of permit have regard to the following, namely, (i) nature, gravity and frequency of the breach of conditions committed; (ii) the quantum of punishment that would otherwise have been imposed; and (iii) the earning capacity of the vehicle with reference to the nature of the route and passenger capacity in the case of stage carriages, and average daily mileage of the vehicle and hire charges, if any, in respect of other classes of transport vehicles. Gong by the proviso to clause (b), the amount so recoverable in lieu of suspension shall in no case be less than the minimum or more than the maximum specified in the Table to Rule 186. 19. Section 207 of the MV Act deals with power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration, permit, etc. As per sub-section (1) of Section 207, any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle. Going by the proviso of sub-rule (1), where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgement in respect thereof. As per sub-section (2) of Section 207, where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose. 20. Rule 351 of the KMV Rules deals with officers empowered to seize vehicles and documents. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 351, where a motor vehicle is seized under sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the MV Act by an officer authorised under sub-rule (1), he shall (a) prepare a mahazar in triplicate containing the details of the vehicle seized and the offence for which it is seized and a seizure list in quadruple showing the articles found detached in the vehicle at the time of seizure and hand over a copy each thereof, to the person in possession and control of the vehicle, under proper acknowledgement; (b) arrange or cause to be arranged for the safe custody of the vehicle till it is released under sub-section (2) of the Section 207; (c) send a report together with copies of the mahazar, seizure list and other records, if any, to the authority or officer authorised by the Government under subsection (2) of Section 207 of Act to order for the release of the vehicle seized. The first proviso to sub-rule (2) provides that, where the vehicle is seized by an officer, other than a police officer, he shall hand over the vehicle, immediately, to the officer-in-charge of the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area within which the vehicle was seized, for custody. The second proviso to sub-rule (2) provides further that where the vehicle is seized in a check post by an officer of the Motor Vehicles Department, he may arrange for the safe custody of the vehicle in the check-post concerned. 21. As already noticed, sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 48 of the MV Act deals with the procedure to be followed by a registering authority on receipt of an application for no objection certificate under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the said Act. 21. As already noticed, sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 48 of the MV Act deals with the procedure to be followed by a registering authority on receipt of an application for no objection certificate under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the said Act. As provided under sub-section (5) of Section 48, before granting or refusing to grant the no objection certificate, the registering authority has to verify whether all the amounts due to Government including road tax in respect of that motor vehicle have been paid. Further, as per as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 58 of the CMV Rules, in the case of a transport vehicle, an application made under Section 48 of the MV Act, for the issue of no objection certificate shall be accompanied by documentary evidence to show that the sum of money agreed upon to be paid by the holder of the permit under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 86 of the Act, if any, is not pending recovery. 22. As per sub-section (5) of Section 86 of MV Act, where a permit is liable to be cancelled or suspended under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 86, i.e., on the breach of any condition specified in Section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit; or if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit; or if the holder of the goods carriage permit, fails without reasonable cause, to use the vehicle for the purposes for which the permit was granted, 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. As per subsection (6) of Section 86, the powers exercisable by the transport authority under sub-section (5) may, where an appeal has been preferred under Section 89, be exercised also by the appellate authority. 23. As per subsection (6) of Section 86, the powers exercisable by the transport authority under sub-section (5) may, where an appeal has been preferred under Section 89, be exercised also by the appellate authority. 23. As already noticed, out of 7 check reports in W.P. (C)No.2942 of 2018, 6 check reports, i.e., Exts.R1(a) to R1(e) and R1(g) relate to commission of offence under sub-section (3) of Section 113(3) and sub-section (1) of Section 194 of MV Act and Ext.R1(f) check report relates to commission of offence under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the said Act. As per Section 180, whoever, being the owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle, causes or permits, any other person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 to drive the vehicle shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. As per Section 181, whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. As per sub-section (1) of Section 200 of the MV Act, an offence punishable under Section 180 or Section 181 of the said Act is non compoundable. 24. As per sub-section (1) of Section 194 of the MV Act, which deals with the offence of driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight, 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 of the said Act 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. As per sub-section (2) of Section 194, 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. The offence punishable under Section 194 of the MV Act is a compoundable offence as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 200 of the said Act. As per sub-section (1), such an offence, whether committed before or after the commencement of the Act, 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. 25. Recovery of sum of money in lieu of cancellation or suspension of permit under sub-section (5) of Section 86 of the MV Act is provided under Rule 186 of the KMV Rules. As per clause (a) of Rule 186, the transport authority while passing an order of cancellation or suspension of a permit under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the MV Act shall specify (i) the sum of money payable by the permit holder in case he agrees for the composition; (ii) the date by which the permit holder should intimate acceptance of composition; (iii) the date by which the composition fee should be remitted and the chalan produced; and (iv) the date from which the suspension or cancellation will take effect in case the composition fee is not paid within the date specified under clause (iii). As per clause (b) of Rule 186, the transport authority shall, in determining the sum of money to be recovered in lieu of cancellation or suspension of different classes of permit having regard to the matters enumerated under sub-clause (i) to (iii) thereof. Gong by the proviso to clause (b) of Rule 186, the amount so recoverable in lieu of suspension shall in no case be less than the minimum or more than the maximum specified in the Table to the said Rule. As per the said Table, in the case of cancellation or suspension of a goods carriage permit under sub-section (5) of Section 86 of the MV Act for overloading, the amount recoverable in lieu suspension shall be a minimum of Rs.1,000/-per day and a maximum of Rs.2,000/-plus Rs.1,000/- per tonnes of excess load. 26. Section 56 of the MV Act deals with certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. 26. Section 56 of the MV Act deals with certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. Rule 73 of the CMV Rules provides that, no authorised testing station shall accept an application for the grant or renewal of a certificate of fitness unless the same is accompanied by a tax clearance certificate in such form as may be specified by the State Government, from the Regional Transport Officer or Motor Vehicle Inspector having jurisdiction in the area to the effect that the vehicle is not in arrears of motor vehicle tax or any compounding fee referred to in sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 86 of the said Act. Rule 105 of the KMV Rules deals with certificate of fitness. The first proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 105, inserted by the Kerala Motor Vehicles (First Amendment) Rules, 2016 with effect from 21/04/2016 provides that, no officer of the Motor Vehicles Department shall accept an application for the grant or renewal of certificate of fitness or other services, except for remittance of tax, with respect to a transport vehicle, unless the same is accompanied by a clearance certificate in 'Form CC' from the original registering authority to the effect that the vehicle has no Government dues, arrears of Motor Vehicles Tax or any other legal action pending in that office. 27. The validity of the first proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 105 of the KMV Rules was under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C)No.27633 of 2016 and connected cases. The learned Single Judge declared the proviso as introduced to be ultra vires the rule making powers of the State. The State went in appeal. The Division Bench in C.P. Varghese's case (supra) held that, Rule 73 of the CMV Rules talks of a tax clearance certificate in a form to be specified by the State Government in relation to Motor Vehicle Tax or any compounding fee, as referred to in sub-section (5) or subsection (6) of Section 86 of the MV Act. Therefore, the requirement under the CMV Rules made with reference to Section 64 of the MV Act is limited to Motor Vehicle Tax and compounding fee alone. Therefore, the requirement under the CMV Rules made with reference to Section 64 of the MV Act is limited to Motor Vehicle Tax and compounding fee alone. But, the newly inserted first proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 105 of the KMV Rules has travelled beyond these two, i.e., the Motor Vehicle Tax or compounding fee and it has gone to 'no government dues and other legal actions pending in that office' meaning, the office of the transport authority, which is surely beyond the object and the scope of the MV Act itself. In the said decision, after referring to the provisions under Rule 186 of the KMV Rules, the Division Bench noticed that, a compounding fee under or with reference to the MV Act is a liability to pay a fee to compound a default. It arises only when a person has agreed to compound and was thus liable to pay a fee which is not paid in spite of compounding. Having noted Sections 64, 65 and 86 of the MV Act, Rule 73 of the CMV Rules and also Rule 105 of the KMV Rules, the Division Bench held that the only way to uphold the newly inserted proviso would be to read that the expression that the vehicle has got 'no Government dues', to mean, no Government dues under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed thereunder, and the expression 'other legal action pending in that office' to mean, where a person has agreed to compound but has failed to pay the compounding fee. Thus, the proviso can be brought in line with the requirements of Rule 73 of the CMV Rules and limited to that purpose alone and not beyond that. Reading the proviso thus would mean that the clearance certificate in 'Form CC' as prescribed by the State, obtained from the original registering authority, would only be in relation to clearance of any dues under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed thereunder and the arrears of Motor Vehicle Tax or any compounding fee, agreed but not paid, and no other matter. Thus read, the proviso would be consistent with the object of the MV Act and the Rules and the rule making power. 28. Thus read, the proviso would be consistent with the object of the MV Act and the Rules and the rule making power. 28. In Ext.P7 judgment dated 13.12.2017 in W.A.No.2554 of 2017 a Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the decision in C.P. VArghese's case (supra) held that, if a check report containing an offence under Sections 113 and 114 of the Motor Vehicles Act is pending and if the registered owner is found guilty, the consequence that will visit upon him is the fine that is provided in Section 194. No such proceedings have been initiated before any court of law against the registered owner. The appellants also have no case that, merely because of the pendency of the check reports, there is any statutory prohibition on the part of the registered owner in transferring a vehicle or seeking endorsement of such transfer. In such circumstances, the Division Bench held that, since the registered owner has not been found guilty and as he has also not compounded the offence in question, the endorsement sought for by the registered owner could not have been denied by the appellants. 29. The sum of money in lieu of cancellation or suspension of permit under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 86 of the MV Act will become due and payable only when the holder of the permit agrees for composition and the transport authority while passing an order of suspension or cancellation of permit under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the MV Act specify the sum of money payable by the permit holder in case he agrees for the composition and the date by which he should intimate acceptance of composition. Such composition is permissible only if the permit holder agrees for compounding and as such, the liability to pay the said amount in lieu of cancellation or suspension of permit arises only when the permit holder, after agreeing for such composition failed to pay the sum of money specified in the order of the transport authority, in terms of Rule 186 of the KMV Rules. Till such time, the sum of money payable in lieu of cancellation or suspension of permit under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 86 of the MV Act cannot be treated as an amount due to the Government, as provided under sub-section (5) of Section 48 of the MV Act or the sum of money pending recovery, as provided under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 58 of the CMV Rules. Therefore, the mere pendency of Exts.R1(a) to R1(g) check reports in W.P.(C)No.2942 of 2018 and similar check reports in W.P.(C)Nos.2583 of 2018 and 2643 of 2018 will not be a bar in the registering authority considering the application made by the registered owner of a goods carriage for grant of no objection under Section 48 of the MV Act and the registering authority cannot insist that the registered owner should clear the pending check reports for consideration of such an application. 30. Sub-section (1) of Section 207 of the MV Act empowers any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government to seize and detain a motor vehicle, in the prescribed manner, if he has reason to believe that that motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle. However, going by the proviso of sub-rule (1), where he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 he may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgement in respect thereof. Further, as per sub-section (2) of Section 207, where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose. The provisions under sub-rule (2) of Rule 351 of the KMV Rules would show that the custody of the vehicle with the authorised officer is till it is released under sub-section (2) of the Section 207 of the MV Act. 31. As per Section 180 and Section 181 of the MV Act, for contravention of the provisions under Section 3 or Section 4 of the said Act, the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle as well as the driver of the said vehicle shall be punished with imprisonment or with fine or with both. Similarly, as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 194 of the MV Act, 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 punished with fine, and as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 194, 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. The aforesaid provisions do not authorise either confiscation of the said vehicle or its continued detention beyond the scope of Section 207 of the MV Act. Further, the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 114 of the Act empowers the authorised officer to permit removal the vehicle or trailer from the place, if pursuant to the orders of the authorised officer the driver has off-loaded the excess weight at his own risk. 32. Further, the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 114 of the Act empowers the authorised officer to permit removal the vehicle or trailer from the place, if pursuant to the orders of the authorised officer the driver has off-loaded the excess weight at his own risk. 32. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Delhi [ (2009) 3 SCC 634 ] the Apex Court held that, Section 207 of the MV Act authorises any police officer to seize and detain any motor vehicle in the event he has reason to believe that it has been or was being used in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used in the prescribed manner and for the said purpose to take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 207 of the Act, the authorised officer could not have directed production of the vehicle for the period during which the permit was directed to be suspended. Power of detention of a vehicle could be exercised only for a limited purpose. Such a power could not include a power directing the owner of a bus to produce the offending vehicle for the purposes mentioned in the notice, i.e., for the purpose of suspension or cancellation of the permit and for impounding of the vehicle. In the said decision, the Apex Court has also clarified that, the direction in M.C. Metha v. Union of India [ (1997) 8 SCC 770 ] that any breach will be considered to be in contravention of the conditions of the permit, which could entail suspension/cancellation of the permit and impounding of the vehicle must be read in the light of the provisions under the MV Act and not dehors the same. 33. 33. When confiscation of the vehicle or continued detention of the vehicle beyond the scope of Section 207 of the MV Act is legally impermissible for the offence alleged in the check reports, the consideration of the applications for no objection filed under Section 48 of the MV Act cannot be deferred, stating that the respondent is going to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners in these writ petitions, invoking Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which empowers the Magistrate Court to grant extension of the period of limitation provided under Section 468 of the Code. 34. In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 applications dated 17/01/2018 produced in the respective writ petitions for grant of no objection certificate under Section 48 of the MV Act in respect of the respective vehicles owned by the petitioners, without insisting on the respective petitioners clearing any pending check reports. The respondent shall pass appropriate orders on those applications, as directed above, with notice to the respective petitioners and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment. It is made clear that, this judgment will not stand in the way of the respondent proceeding further with the check reports issued in respect of the respective vehicles and initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.