NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday suggested to states and Union Territories that they consider strict measures such as linking pending e-challan dues for traffic violations to electricity bills for recovery.
The court said merely issuing thousands and lakhs of e-challans is not enough, and that the real challenge is recovering the fines.
A bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K V Viswanathan made these suggestions on Monday while hearing an application concerning electronic enforcement of traffic violations and recovery of unpaid e-challan fines, in a long-running 2012 PIL on road safety filed by social activist S Rajasekaran.
The court was told that states and Union Territories have to recover about Rs 45,000 crore under e-challans, of which about Rs 25,000 crore has been recovered so far.
On this aspect, the court said authorities will have to find effective ways keeping ground realities in mind. The court suggested that the dues of those who do not pay challans can be added to their electricity dues. The court said, “If people are not paying traffic challans, add it to their electricity bill dues. They will have to pay the electricity bill, otherwise the connection will be cut. Work on this. In this country you will have to find a way.”
The court suggested steps such as stopping renewal of vehicle registration, issuance of duplicate certificates and change of ownership until challans are paid. Blacklisting such vehicles on the transport portal, stopping fitness and PUC certificates, and stopping renewal of driving licences were also considered. The court also suggested suspending already issued licences and random checking of vehicles with pending challans. Justice Pardiwala said that if payment of the challan is not found during checking, necessary steps be taken to seize the vehicle.
During the hearing of the 2012 PIL, the court also questioned how much impact its directions issued over nearly 14 years have had on the ground. The court asked amicus curiae senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal to prepare a chart of the directions, their compliance timelines and their present status. The court said that if its directions remained limited to paper, strict action may have to be taken against officials in future.