After hearing the arguments advanced by P H Parikh, appearing for the petitioners Federation of Delhi Bus Operators, the Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan ordered an interim stay till further orders.

The Federation had approached the court challenging the impugned part of the decision.

In March 2007, the High Court had said, "Wherever any driver of any vehicle, including a two-wheeler, is challaned by the traffic police and/or any other competent authority, he/she shall be liable to pay a cost of Rs 500 for each offence committed by him/her in addition to the composition of the fee [fine] payable under the Motor Vehicles Act."

In its appeal challenging the High Court ruling in June 2007, the petitioner had contended that its association members as well as the public were being put under a heavy burden for simple traffic violations. The High Court direction was being misused by the traffic police in the garb collecting a "heavy amount", the petitioners submitted. They sought annulment of the impugned High Court judgment and an interim stay of its operation.

Parikh, appearing before the Supreme Court Bench, also comprising Justices R V Raveedran and M K Sharma, submitted that imposition of "cost" was the Parliament's duty, and not the courts'. "The High Court erred in directing imposition of fines, as it is illegal on the premise that such a cost could be imposed on the facts of each case. It cannot be imposed as a rule of thumb," the counsel argued.

Earlier, on June 12, 2007, taking up the appeal filed by the Federation through its president Harvinder Singh Kalra, the apex court had issued notice to the Centre, the Delhi government and the Delhi Police seeking their responses.

However, the Bench then hearing the matter was not inclined to stay the controversial part -- imposing a penalty of an additional Rs 500 -- and had declined to grant an interim stay.

The petitioner now submitted that following the High Court judgment the authorities were indiscriminately imposing a penalty of Rs 500 and a fine of Rs 100 for every small violation -- such as "not wearing uniform", "no number plate", "not using belt" and "jumping red light" among others.

Assailing the High Court judgment, the advocate had submitted it was a glaring example of judicial activism by usurping and encroaching upon legislative functions. Parikh said the directions issued by the High Court were contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its various judgments.