Penalties based on contradictory official records and unverified allegations are arbitrary.

The petitioners owned two goods vehicles and held permits to transport sand from Budihal to Gadag Medical College between 4:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on 10 August 2015

The permits bore check-post endorsements recording the vehicles at approximately 8:51 p.m. and 9:10 p.m.; however, the Circle Inspector’s communication stated that he had found the vehicles at 11:00 p.m.

The vehicles were seized, and ₹25,000 was collected from each petitioner.

In earlier writ proceedings, the High Court directed their release, making the amounts subject to the outcome of an enquiry.

In the subsequent enquiry, the petitioners alleged that they had been asked to pay a bribe at a check-post, while the Circle Inspector’s questionnaire response stated that he had not noticed the vehicles.

The Senior Geologist nevertheless issued a notice treating the amounts as fines and indicating further action, prompting the present petition.

1. Whether the notice and related action treating the amounts collected from the petitioners as fines were sustainable in light of the permit endorsements and the conflicting enquiry material

2. Whether the respondents’ conduct warranted quashing the impugned action and granting refund and compensation

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which empower the High Court to review administrative action

The Court applied the principle that administrative action must have a credible factual basis and must not be arbitrary or excessive; it assessed the action against the permits, check-post endorsements, official communications and enquiry responses

No statute or precedent was identified or applied in the order

The permits authorised transport until 10:00 p.m., and the check-post endorsements recorded the vehicles before that time

Although the Circle Inspector’s communication placed the vehicles near Gadag at 11:00 p.m., his questionnaire response stated that he had not noticed them, creating a material inconsistency in the respondents’ account

The Court also found that the respondents’ action was disproportionate in the circumstances and that the petitioners had not been given an opportunity to verify the station-diary material relied upon against them

It concluded that the proceedings were tainted by arbitrariness and excess

It directed the Senior Geologist to refund ₹25,000 to each petitioner and to pay each petitioner ₹10,000 as compensation for the unwarranted proceedings, within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.