Delhi High Court: A petition was filed under Section 530 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for quashing of orders dated 19-07-2024 and 27-07-2024 passed by learned JMFC-02 (South), Saket Courts, Delhi whereby MD/CEO of Benetton India Private Limited (petitioner) was directed to appear in the proceedings taken up for disposal of traffic challans, which were issued for over speeding in respect of a vehicle registered in the name of the Benetton India. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J., directed that the MD/CEO of the company to appear solely for the disposal of traffic challans pertaining to the company-registered vehicle is uncalled for and does not align with the principles of judicial economy.
In 2020, the petitioner company’s vehicle received two traffic challans, which needed resolution prior to the vehicle’s scrapping. An Authorized Representative (AR) of the company appeared before the Trial Court to address the challans. However, during the proceedings, it came to light that the AR possessed a company stamp similar to that used on the authorization letter from the MD and CEO. This similarity prompted the JMFC-02 to order the presence of both the notary concerned and the MD/CEO for further inquiry into potential forgery or procedural irregularities. On 27-07-2024, after the notary’s testimony, the Court discharged the notary with a warning to maintain better records. Nonetheless, the JMFC-02 continued to mandate the physical presence of the company’s CEO/MD for the formal imposition of fines, reasoning that an AR’s appearance alone was insufficient.
Aggrieved by the JMFC-02’s orders, the petitioner contended that the traffic violations could be settled by the AR without the CEO/MD’s involvement, given the substantial burden it would place on the executive team of a large company. The petitioner argued that the Court’s insistence on the CEO’s appearance constituted an excessive and arbitrary procedural burden and the Trial Court’s inquiry into the company’s internal authorization processes was unnecessary, as the AR had been duly authorized.
The Court observed the need for practical adjudication of minor traffic matters, acknowledging that large corporations often manage multiple vehicles for business, making it impractical for high-ranking executives to appear for minor violations. The Court emphasized the validity of the AR’s authorization, concluding that the Trial Court’s directive for the CEO/MD’s appearance was irrational and should be rescinded. Consequently, the Court set aside the JMFC-02’s orders and directed the Trial Court to resolve the challans with the AR’s representation.
The Court noted the technological evolution of traffic law enforcement, particularly the automated issuance of e-challans based on CCTV surveillance. It further noted that recent amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, applicable in Delhi, provide multiple channels for traffic violation resolution, including on-the-spot fines, online payments, e-courts, and Lok Adalats for compoundable offences. The Court also identified specific issues with the e-court system, noting gaps in user-friendliness and accessibility that hinder efficient resolution. Among these issues were difficulties in disputing challans online and the lack of options to specify if a vehicle was being driven by someone other than the registered owner.
In response to these concerns, the Delhi Traffic Police filed a status report, detailing ongoing efforts to improve the system, including updating mobile contact information for vehicle registration and appointing a designated officer to address grievances related to traffic violations. The report outlined protocols for managing complaints within seven working days and providing clear communication to the complainants about grievance outcomes.
Thus, the Court commended the Delhi Traffic Police’s proactive stance and ordered the circulation of a public notification to increase awareness of the updated procedures. It also suggested that its recommendations regarding the e-court system be forwarded to the Supreme Court’s e-Committee for further improvements to online challan management. The petition was ultimately disposed of, with the Court’s instructions sent to the Trial Court for implementation.
[Benetton India Private Limited v. State NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7372, decided on 21-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Karan Nagrath, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Ms. Rashmi Gogoi, Mr. Laksh Kundlas, Mr. Krishnagopal Abhay, Mr. Karmanya Singh and Mr. Ambuj Tiwari and Ms. Niharika Tanwar, Advocates for petitioner
Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with Mr.Dheeraj Narrang, ACP / Traffic / New and Mr. Amit Issar, ACP / Traffic / HQ. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, AOJ on behalf of Registrar General, High Court of Delhi.
