K. A. Swami, J.
1. Sri S. Udaya Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader was directed to take notice for the respondent. Accordingly, he has put in appearance. This matter relates to suspension of the Registration Certificate. It is taken up for final disposal itself.
2. In this Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders dated 19-1-1985 bearing No. DSA. I. CR. 583/85 86 and 25-3-1985 bearing No. DCT. RGN.15/84-85 passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively and produced as Annexures A and B respectively.
3. The Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. MYU 4613. On four occasions, viz., 18-8-1984 1-9-1984, 3140-1984 and 17-11-1984. he has used the stage carriage in question without a permit. On the previous day of each of the aforesaid dates, he had applied for special permit and without the grant of special permit, he had used the Vehicle on the subsequent dates. These facts are not disputed. In fact, before the Second respondent, the General Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner appeared and pleaded for leniency. The second respondent having regard to the fact that the petitioner had used the stage carriage without the permit on four occasions, ordered for suspension of the Registration Certificate for a period of four months. There was no written explanation filedexplaining the circumstances under which the vehicle in question was used on the aforesaid four occasions without a permit. In the Appeal, the first respondent has agreed with the view taken by the second respondent and dismissed the Appeal.
4. Sri B.R.S. Gupta, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on all the aforesaid four dates, the vehicle was operated without a permit in the area within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Officer, Mandya. That the vehicle was checked in the area lying within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Officer, Mandya. Therefore, it was the R.T.O. Mandya who had the jurisdiction to deal with the case and not the Regional Transport Officer, Mysore. It is not in dispute that this vehicle without the permit, on the afore-said four dates, was used as stage carriage on the route passing through the area lying within the jurisdiction of the R.T.O. Mysore. That being so, the vehicle had been used' without a permit on the route which lies within thejurisdiction of the R.T.O. Mysore. It is not the place of checking alone that determines the jurisdiction. No doubt, theplace of checking enables the authority within whose jurisdiction the checking takes place to exercise the jurisdiction; but nevertheless, the authority through whose jurisdiction the vehicle passes while it is being used as a stage carriage without a permit, will have jurisdiction becausecontravention takes place in the area lying within his jurisdiction. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of Sri Gupta, Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to deal with the case.
5. It is next contended that the suspension of Registration Certificate for a period of four months is excessive in as much as if all the four contraventions had been dealt with separately in respect of each contravention, the Registration Certificate could have been suspended at the most for a period of two weeks in each case. As submitted by Sri S. Udayashankar, Learned High Court Government Pleader, there is no doubt that the petitioner knowing fully well that he has not been granted special permit, has used the vehicle as a stage carriage repeatedly on four occasions. No doubt, the petitioner has used the vehicle one day in every month from August to November without a permit. Having regard to the fact that, the petitioner has not contested theproceeding and has only sought for a lenient view, and also in view of the fact that all the four contraventions have been dealt with together in one proceeding, I think it will be just and appropriate and will meet the ends of justice and will also serve as a lesson to the petitioner if the period of suspension of the Registration Certificate is reduced from four months to two months.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms :
The suspension of Registration Certificate of the vehicle bearing Registration No. MYV 4613for a period of four months as ordered by respondents 1 and 2 is reduced to two months.