@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Balakrishna, J.-The petitioners have challenged the orders of Respondent-1, suspending the registration certificate of the vehicles of the petitioners bearing Nos. MBE 2755 and MBF 1955, for a period of four months. This order of suspension was confirmed in appeal by, Respondent-2.
2. The petitioners state that they are the tourist operators operating their services throughout the territory of India. The vehicle bearing No. MBE 2755, is registered under the ownership of petitioner-1, as a Omni Bus before the Regional Transport Authority, Indore. The said vehicle according to the petitioners is regularly engaged by the touring parties for touring various places and touring pilgrim centres in Karnataka. The vehicle was checked in the month of December, 1983 and March, 1984 and check reports were issued including allegation of violations. The offences imputed in the check reports are that the vehicle carried individual passengers collecting individual fares in the State of Karnataka between two points mentioned therein.
In regard to the vehicle bearing No. MBF 1955, 2nd petitioner is the owner and this vehicle is also regularly engaged by parties for tourist purpose in order to visit places of tourist interest and pilgrimage centres in Karnataka. This vehicle was also intercepted and checked in the month of December, 1983 and March, 1984 and check report was issued. The offence complained of in the check report is again that the vehicle carried individual passengers after collecting individual fares in the State of Karnataka between two points mentioned therein.
3. The point for consideration is whether the impugned orders are sustainable?
4. My attention is drawn to the decision rendered in A.P. Chinagi v. Registering Authority & R.T.O., reported in ILR 1988 Karnataka P. 59. It was laid down in the said decision:
"In order to attract the applicability of Sec. 33(1)(b) of the Act, what has to be shown is that the vehicle was being used for hire or reward. Section 33(1)(b) encompasses within its filed vehicles which have no permit, while Sec. 60 envisages those vehicles which are possessed of a valid permit; but are being, used by contravening the conditions of the permit........The provisions of Section 33(1)(b) would be attracted only to those cases where a vehicle is without any permit whatsoever as is being used for hire or reward."
5. The facts and circumstances of the instant case are in parimateria with the decision referred to above.
6. It is also seen that the maximum punishment prescribed in such cases which is four months of suspension of the registration certificate has been inflicted. This is also a point to be examined in regard to its suspension.
7. As far as the application of the decision cited in ILR 1988 Karnataka 59, is concerned, the impugned order falls within the ambit of the decision and therefore, is liable to be quashed. With regard to the maximum punishment that is being meted out, I am of the opinion that the punishment is violative of the doctrine of proportionality, in as-much-as there is no material on record to come to the conclusion that all the necessary facts have been taken into account in order to ensure that the punishment imposed is commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed. In the absence of such material, it is not possible to hold that even with regard to the period of suspension of the registration certificate, the impugned order is liable to be struck down.
8. For the reasons stated above, I pass the following order:
The impugned orders vide Annexures A, B and C are hereby quashed.
If so advised, it is open to the Authorities to take such action against the petitioners, which the law permits in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of.
