Police cannot coerce people to pay traffic challans: HC

The Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed the State police authorities ‘not to adopt any coercive measures for recovery of traffic challans already issued or pending’. 

The order was passed by Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the HC in a batch of two writ petitions filed by a private employee V. Raghavendra Chary questioning different aspects of imposing traffic challans and collecting the same from vehicle drivers. While instructing officials not to resort to coercive measures for collection of traffic rule violation related fine amounts, the judge made it clear that officials were ‘at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for prosecution of traffic offenders before the competent court’.

The judge also clarified that the order was ‘confined to the action of the authorities while initiating action against traffic violators’. The authorities were not being barred from checking the commuters in the usual course, the judge said.

Justice Shravan Kumar noted that the authorities can collect the fine amounts if the traffic rule violators were “willing to pay the pending challans”. 

If the challans remained unpaid, the violators concerned should face the prosecution in the court. 

The officials can take action in this regard strictly in accordance with law, the judge noted. The petitioner’s counsel Vijay Gopal argued that as per GO Ms. No. 108 of 2011 the government can compound the offences relating to traffic rules violation under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act-1988. It mandated that a notification should be issued for this. However, till date no such notification was issued, the counsel said. 

In the absence of such notification, the authorities should have taken steps to prosecute the traffic rule violators. Instead of prosecution, the authorities were coercing the public to make traffic challan payments, he contended. He further argued that under Section 200 of the Act, the authorities had no power to compound offences connected to traffic rule violations. 

The hearing was adjourned to February 3.