A traffic challan in Telangana: the first real section 200 notification — and it sets its own ceiling.

Thirteen states, and finally the document itself

Every page in this series has run into the same wall. The rules of a state do not contain the money. The money is in a notification issued under section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and in twelve states that notification was either not published, published as a photograph of a photograph, or referred to by newspapers without anybody producing it.

We tested seven states properly: is section 200 among the powers the state’s motor vehicles rules were made under? Seven times the answer was no. That told us where the power was not being exercised. It could not tell us what the document looked like when it was.

Telangana publishes it.

What G.O. Ms. No. 108 is

A government order of the Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR-I) Department, numbered G.O. Ms. No. 108 and dated 18 August 2011, gazetted on 20 August 2011 and signed by D. Lakshmi Parthasarathy, Principal Secretary to Government. It is on the transport department’s own site, under its notifications page.

Its opening words are the ones this series has been looking for:

It supersedes three earlier notifications — of 28 March 2006, 3 May 2006 and 27 November 2006 — and the department still lists two of those alongside it, which is a courtesy other states do not extend.

Why it says Andhra Pradesh

Because it was made three years before the state was divided. Telangana inherited it on separation and publishes it as its own, which is exactly the arrangement Jharkhand has with Bihar’s rules.

That is not a technicality for a reader. A document headed with the name of a state that no longer administers you is easy to dismiss as obsolete, and this one is not obsolete in that sense — it is what the department currently publishes. Whether it is obsolete in a different sense is the subject of half this page.

The inference, now proved

Across seven states we said the same thing in slightly different words: compounding amounts are not kept in the rules, they live in a standalone instrument, and that is why nobody can find them. It was a reasonable inference from seven absences.

Here is the instrument. It cites section 200, it is standalone, it is a government order rather than a rule, and it was issued by a department rather than made under the rule-making power. The inference holds, and a reader hunting through the Telangana Motor Vehicles Rules for a figure would still find nothing — because the figure was never going to be there.

Who may take the money

The notification specifies them itself, which most of this series has had to piece together from separate documents.

• Transport Department — officers not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector.
• Police Department — officers in uniform not below the rank of Inspector of Police, and also Sub-Inspectors of Police (Traffic), with Inspectors elsewhere and Sub-Inspector rank for certain visible offences.

Set that against the rest of the series and it sits in the middle. Maharashtra works about ninety-five of its hundred and four rows at Police Constable level. West Bengal uses a Sub-Inspector or Sergeant. Haryana starts at Assistant Sub-Inspector. Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector is a defined technical post rather than a general rank, which makes Telangana’s transport-side floor narrower than it looks.

What came before, and what it tells you

The department does something unusual: it still publishes the notifications this one superseded. Two of them are listed beside it, and their titles are informative.

• G.O. Ms. No. 54, 28 March 2006 — “Compounding offences under Section 200 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Notification — Issued.”
• G.O. Ms. No. 242, 27 November 2006 — “Compounding offences under section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Empowering of Police Officers of the Cadre of Sub Inspector — Orders — Issued.”

Read the second title again. In March 2006 the state issued its compounding notification. Eight months later it issued a separate order for one purpose: to bring Sub-Inspectors into the power to compound.

So the rank floor on the police side was not decided once. It was lowered deliberately, by its own instrument, after the main notification was already running — and in 2011 that extension was folded back into a single document, which is why G.O. Ms. No. 108 lists both Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Police (Traffic) together.

That matters beyond Telangana. Across this series the question “who may stop you and write this” has produced wildly different answers — Police Constable in Maharashtra, Sub-Inspector or Sergeant in West Bengal, Assistant Sub-Inspector in Haryana. Here we can see one state changing its own answer, in public, with the reason in the title. The rank floor is not a fixed feature of a state. It is a decision somebody takes and can retake.

All eighteen rows

Reproduced as printed, including the offence wording. Column four covers motor cycles, motor cycle-cabs and light motor vehicles; column five covers motor vehicles other than those.

Rows 9 and 10 are marked because of what the 2019 amendment did to them, which the arithmetic section below takes up.

The two columns, and what decides which applies

Column four is for motor cycles, motor cycle-cabs and light motor vehicles. Column five is for everything else. Fifteen of the eighteen rows carry the same figure in both.

Only three rows actually distinguish. Row 1 spells out the helmet and seat belt figures on the two-wheeler and small-vehicle side. Row 8 charges only a vehicle in the second column, because a conductor is not something a motor cycle has. Row 15 is the real difference: a registration or fitness lapse costs two thousand per offence on a motor cycle or light vehicle and five thousand for each offence on anything larger.

That is a sparing use of a two-column design and it is worth noticing. Uttarakhand builds its whole composition rule around vehicle class. Telangana sets the structure up and then uses it three times.

The last row, which is not about you

Row 18 is section 198, “Unauthorized interference with vehicle”, at a hundred rupees — the joint-lowest figure in the schedule.

It is the only row in the table that does not describe something a driver or owner did. Section 198 is about somebody else interfering with a vehicle without authority. If it is applied, the person holding the challan is the person who interfered, and the owner of the vehicle is the one who was wronged.

A hundred rupees is what the state will take to close that without a trial. We are not going to editorialise much, but it is worth seeing the number next to the three thousand for refusing to be weighed. The schedule prices obstruction of the department far above interference with a citizen’s vehicle, and whatever the reasoning was in 2011, nothing in the document explains it.

The practical point for a reader is narrower. If your vehicle has been tampered with, section 198 exists and it is compoundable, which means a challan under it is a realistic outcome and a prosecution is not the only route. That is not something most people know is available.

The proviso that writes the ceiling

Nothing else in thirteen states says this. Other notifications set figures and leave the limit implicit; this one states it. And it does so in a way that is tied to the Act rather than to a number: not “shall not exceed five thousand rupees” but “the maximum fine prescribed in the relevant penal section”.

The practical effect in 2011 was real. Section 177’s maximum was then a hundred rupees for a first offence, so the hundred-rupee figures in row 1 were the ceiling rather than a choice. The proviso was doing work on the day it was written.

Odisha’s floor, Telangana’s ceiling

Our Odisha page set out a settlement annexure in which every row where the Act prescribes a minimum stops exactly at that minimum, and only the rows with no minimum are halved. Seventeen rows, no exceptions. That is a state demonstrating, in practice, that it cannot go below the floor.

Put them side by side and the question these pages have been chasing since the Karnataka page is answered from both directions. A state’s discretion under section 200 runs between the Act’s own floor and the Act’s own ceiling for each offence, and not an inch outside either. Two documents, two states, two different drafting styles, the same boundary.

Neither document was written to prove anything. That is what makes the pair worth having.

The agriculturist proviso

Three conditions have to be met together: a tractor-trailer combination, owned by an agriculturist, not used for hire or reward. Meet all three and the column five rate halves.

We have found nothing like it in any other state notification. Every other figure in this series is indifferent to who is paying it; this one is not. And the thing to notice is that the concession is not written around the offence at all — the same offence costs the same person half as much because of what the vehicle is for.

A state that discounts by who you are

Hold that proviso next to what Telangana did twelve years later. In December 2023, when the state ran a genuine discount scheme, the reductions were set the same way: by category of vehicle and by category of person, not by offence.

Eighty per cent for two-wheelers and autos. Sixty per cent for four-wheelers and heavy vehicles. Ninety per cent waived for road transport corporation drivers, and ninety per cent waived for pushcart owners and petty vendors.

That is the agriculturist proviso’s logic scaled up. Whatever else can be said about it, it is consistent: this is a state that has decided more than once that the right question is who is paying rather than what they did. Odisha asked the opposite question and reached its answers offence by offence. Both are defensible. They are not the same instinct.

The date, and why it is a problem

Now the part that matters most to somebody holding a challan today.

The notification is dated 18 August 2011. The Motor Vehicles Act was substantially amended with effect from 1 September 2019, and that amendment rewrote the penalties across the Act — raising maxima, and in many sections introducing statutory minimums where there had been none.

The department’s notifications page lists nothing about compounding after 2011.

What 2011 figures look like against a 2019 Act

Take two rows and set them against the amended Act.

• Section 183(1), over-speeding. The schedule says four hundred rupees. After 2019 the Act prescribes a minimum of a thousand for a light motor vehicle. The schedule figure is below the statutory floor.
• Section 177. The schedule says a hundred rupees, which in 2011 was the maximum. After 2019 the maximum is five hundred. The schedule figure is a fifth of the ceiling.

Those two rows move in opposite directions and that is the point. A frozen schedule does not become uniformly too low or uniformly too high; it drifts in whichever direction Parliament moved that particular section.

A ceiling that moved while the schedule stood still

Here is the elegant and slightly uncomfortable consequence of how the second proviso was drafted.

Because it binds the compounding fee to “the maximum fine prescribed in the relevant penal section” rather than to a rupee figure, it updates itself. When Parliament raised the maxima in 2019, the proviso’s ceiling rose automatically with them, without anybody in Hyderabad having to do anything.

The schedule underneath it did not. So a proviso designed to restrain the schedule now sits far above it on most rows, restraining nothing. The one part of the document that keeps itself current is the part that was there to impose a limit.

Why we do not think the page is simply neglected

The obvious explanation for an old notification is an abandoned website. That does not fit here.

The department’s notifications page carries entries as recent as November 2025 on other subjects. It is maintained. Somebody is adding to it. What is not being added is anything about compounding.

There are innocent readings — compounding notifications may be published elsewhere, or the 2011 order may genuinely still be in force with the proviso doing the updating. We are setting out what the department publishes and what it does not, and leaving the explanation open.

The one question worth asking

Everything above reduces to a single question that nobody outside the department can answer and that costs very little to put:

An RTI application is the instrument for it, and it is the cheapest document we prepare. We are recommending it here not because the matter is small but because the question is narrow and the answer is large.

The real discount: December 2023

Telangana did run a genuine reduction, and it is worth setting out properly because it is the thing every false claim since has been imitating.

It was announced on 26 December 2023, built around a mega National Lok Adalat held on 30 December 2023 under the supervision of the Telangana High Court. It was to run to 10 January 2024 and was then extended to 31 January 2024 on the direction of Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy.

These are reported figures. We could not obtain the instrument behind the scheme, and everything in this section comes from contemporary press reports rather than from a document we have read.

What it was worth

About fifty crore rupees was reported collected from 26 December onward, in the report announcing the extension in January 2024.

The reason given for extending it was, as reported, the rush, the encouraging response, and economic hardship faced by the public due to Covid. That last ground, offered in January 2024, is the reported wording. We are repeating it rather than accounting for it.

Ninety per cent, and a question we cannot answer

Read that table against everything earlier on this page and a difficulty appears immediately.

A ninety per cent reduction on a section 184 challan would produce a figure far below the thousand-rupee minimum the amended Act prescribes for that offence. An eighty per cent reduction would too. On the reasoning that the Odisha annexure demonstrates so carefully, those numbers should not have been available.

Why the Lok Adalat route may matter

It is worth being precise about what a Lok Adalat does, because this page has now described two different things that both get called a discount.

Under the Odisha scheme, a department decided in advance what it would accept and published a table. The reduction existed in an instrument before anybody turned up.

Under the Telangana arrangement, the reduction was announced around a Lok Adalat sitting, and the mechanism by which an individual matter closed was a settlement recorded at that sitting. Our page on Lok Adalats sets out what such an award is and what it is not.

The distinction is not academic for a reader. It decides where you go, what you are agreeing to, and whether anything is left to argue about afterwards.

And now the fake ones

Since that scheme, Telangana has had an annual problem, and it is the most immediately useful thing on this page.

Every December and January, messages circulate claiming large discounts on pending traffic challans. They are specific, they carry percentages and deadlines, and they are false. They have been fact-checked and denied repeatedly.

What the police actually said

Note the third adjective. “Fraudulent motive” is not a complaint about inaccuracy. The concern is that somebody is using the claim to get something, and the obvious something is a payment made on a link that is not the official portal.

A news site that withdrew its own story

In December 2025 the claim escalated: eleven states, discounts of fifty to a hundred per cent, timed to a National Lok Adalat. It was carried by news websites and not only by forwarded messages.

One of those outlets corrected itself the following day, on 2 December 2025:

We are including a retraction because it tells a reader something a denial does not. This claim was convincing enough to get past a newsroom. If it got past them, there is no shame in it getting past you.

December 2025, and what the legal services authority confirmed

Independent fact-checking found the December 2025 claim misleading. Telangana held its Lok Adalat on 21 December 2025 rather than the national date, and what the state legal services authority confirmed was that there would be no settlement of traffic challans at it.

That is close to the opposite of what was circulating. The event was real, the date was nearly right, and the one thing everybody had been told it would do was the one thing it was not going to do. That combination is what makes these messages so hard to dismiss.

How to tell a real scheme from a fake one

Why these messages are believable

Because the thing they describe keeps actually happening. Hyderabad traffic police are recorded as having offered fifty per cent in 2016 and 2017. Telangana ran its real scheme in December 2023. Delhi reduced in September 2024 and again in September 2025. Bihar halved by gazette notification in 2026. Odisha ran a settlement in 2025.

A false claim about a traffic discount is not an absurd one. It is a true thing, moved to the wrong year. That is exactly the kind of claim that survives being forwarded.

The cost of waiting for the next one

The sensible-sounding response to all of this is to hold the challan and wait for a real scheme. That calculation changed in September 2026.

An unpaid challan now carries consequences that have nothing to do with its amount: a blocked transfer, a withheld renewal, a refused fitness certificate, a vehicle liable to be impounded on a random check. A thousand-rupee entry can stop a sale worth a hundred times that.

Waiting for a discount that may not come, in order to save a few hundred rupees, while the entry blocks a transaction you have not thought of yet, is a poor trade. That is a judgement and you are entitled to disagree with it.

Fifteen weeks later, another state solved this

The problem this page keeps returning to is that a schedule of fixed figures goes stale. Section 183(1) is priced here at four hundred rupees, and the 2019 amendment set a minimum of a thousand for that offence. The number did not move, because a number cannot.

On 30 November 2011 — fifteen weeks after this notification — Meghalaya issued its own notification under the same section 200, and it contains no figures at all. It requires compounding “for amounts not lesser than fifty percent of the maximum fine prescribed”.

So when Parliament multiplied the maxima in 2019, Meghalaya’s amounts rose automatically and this schedule did not. Two states, the same power, the same year, three months apart — and the one that wrote a proportion instead of a price is the only one of the two that still works.

It is not a criticism of whoever drafted this document in 2011; almost every state did the same thing. It is the clearest evidence in this series that on these instruments the drafting choice matters more than the drafting date.

A hundred rupees here, a thousand somewhere else

The section 198 row above is worth one comparison before leaving it. Chhattisgarh’s 2021 schedule prices the same provision at a thousand rupees, which is the full amount the Act allows. Telangana prices it at a hundred.

Ten times, on a provision that exists to protect a vehicle owner from somebody else rather than to punish the owner. What does not change between the two states is the useful part: section 198 is compoundable in both, so a challan is a real option if someone has interfered with your parked vehicle.

The Supreme Court, 28 September 2026

Everything above assumes the challan is sitting there doing nothing while you decide. Since S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1007, that assumption is no longer safe anywhere in India.

What was approved alongside it is the part that bites in practice. An outstanding entry can now stand between an owner and the online transport services, a renewal of registration, a duplicate certificate, a fitness test, a transfer of ownership, and the renewal of a licence where violations have piled up. The Act calls none of those a penalty. They are services, made conditional.

Fine, compounding and settlement

Three things, and this page has touched all three.

• A fine is imposed by a court on conviction and fixed by Parliament. Both its floor and its ceiling belong to the Act.
• A compounding amount is the figure that closes a matter without it ever reaching a court, and section 200 is the provision that lets a state name it. G.O. Ms. No. 108 is exactly that document, and its second proviso is the rare case of a state writing down, in its own instrument, the limit it accepts.
• A settlement is a further, time-limited decision about challans already outstanding — the December 2023 scheme, and Odisha’s and Bihar’s.

Our Karnataka page works through the first two at length, because that is where the argument about what a state may reduce was had in public in 2019.

Section 192, and the only capped row

Row 15 is drafted differently from everything around it. For a motor cycle or light motor vehicle it is two thousand rupees per offence subject to a maximum of five thousand. For other vehicles it is five thousand for each offence subject to a maximum of five thousand.

The structure matters for somebody with several of these. On a motor cycle, three separate section 192 lapses would reach the five-thousand cap rather than running to six. On a larger vehicle the cap arrives with the first one.

Note also what row 15 covers: driving without registration, without renewal of registration, or without a fitness certificate, all in one line. For a commercial operator that is three different clocks feeding a single row.

Refusing to be weighed

Three thousand rupees under section 194(2), the highest single figure in the schedule — higher than dangerous driving, higher than driving without insurance.

It is worth pausing on that priority. The state priced refusing the check above most of the things the check exists to find. West Bengal reached the same conclusion more sharply, putting refusal to submit to weighing at forty thousand rupees with cancellation and suspension following immediately.

Overloading, which is a different thing

Section 194(2) is refusal to be weighed. Overloading itself is section 194(1) and does not appear in the schedule.

We are not going to read across. Four states in this series have taken four unrelated positions on overloading — priced by the tonne, priced and then escalated to permit suspension, priced and then deliberately excluded from a discount scheme, and refused compounding altogether. Nothing in the central Act produced any of those, so nothing lets us predict a fifth.

Drink driving

Section 185 is not in the schedule and could not be. It sits outside the compounding machinery everywhere in India, so there is no counter and no amount. The matter is prosecuted, a magistrate decides, and the licence consequence follows the conviction rather than any officer’s decision. Our page on drink driving cases follows it from the roadside test onwards.

We have since looked, and the answer is sharper than we expected. Andhra Pradesh publishes a “Compounding” link too — and behind it is a completely different document: G.O. Ms. No. 332 of 13 November 2008, made under section 86(5), about permit breaches rather than road offences. Neither order supersedes the other; they were never doing the same job. Our page on a challan in Andhra Pradesh sets it out, along with the prosecution table Andhra Pradesh publishes beside it.

Does any of this apply to Andhra Pradesh?

G.O. Ms. No. 108 was made for undivided Andhra Pradesh, so it is the common ancestor of both states’ arrangements. That is a real connection and it is the reason this page exists in the form it does.

It is not a reason to assume the two have stayed identical. Twelve years have passed since the division, each state has its own transport department, and we have not examined Andhra Pradesh’s own notifications. If your challan is from Andhra Pradesh, this page tells you where the arrangement started and nothing about where it is now.

Hyderabad, Warangal, Karimnagar

The notification is state-wide and the schedule reads identically everywhere.

What differs is enforcement and communication. Hyderabad has a dedicated traffic commissionerate with its own e-challan system and its own public statements, which is why the police denials quoted above come from there and why the false messages are almost always framed around Hyderabad. Outside the commissionerate areas, the transport department’s own officers do more of the work, which is where the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector floor becomes the relevant one.

If the vehicle has been impounded

A seizure sits outside this entire page. The schedule above belongs to officers compounding offences; a seized vehicle belongs to a magistrate under the criminal procedure code, and the timing was rewritten when that code was recast. No amount paid against a challan will move it, and nobody at a counter can release it. The application that does, with the periods that now apply, is on our vehicle release and superdari page.

If the licence has been suspended

Three different things get described with the same sentence and they lead three different ways. A court may have ordered disqualification when it convicted you. A licensing authority may have suspended of its own motion, with no conviction anywhere. Or nothing may have been suspended at all and a renewal is being withheld because violations have accumulated, which is the newest route and dates from September 2026. Only the middle one is appealed to a transport officer, and we were not able to establish which officer that is in Telangana — it is in the gaps list below. Our page on licence suspension handles the first and the second.

If the challan itself is wrong

Three national grounds apply, and they are worth taking one at a time rather than together: does the notice contain what the law says a notice must contain; did it arrive within the time allowed for serving it; and is the camera or device behind it covered by a valid certificate. The third is the one almost nobody raises. Our page on disputing a challan sets out all three.

Add the question this page exists for: which notification does the amount come from, by number and date? In most states that is a check on a figure you already have. Here it is sharper, because the published notification predates the amended Act. A written reply is the ordinary way to put it, and a settlement petition is the document if a genuine scheme is open and your challans belong inside it.

Thirteen states, and what has actually turned up

This page changes the running answer, so it is worth restating.

• A current section 200 notification, published and readable: one. This one — and it is from 2011.
• Priced schedules of some kind: Jharkhand’s twenty-five rows, West Bengal’s officers and money in a single instrument, Maharashtra’s 2016 list and its inverse list of what cannot be compounded, Odisha’s settlement annexure, and now Telangana’s eighteen.
• Composition rates for paperwork inside the rules: Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand.
• Officer schedules without amounts: Rajasthan, Haryana.
• Reported figures with no obtainable instrument: Gujarat, Uttarakhand for 2019, Delhi, and Telangana’s own 2023 scheme.
• Nothing disclosed at all: Uttar Pradesh.

Thirteen states, and the number of current, dated, post-2019 compounding notifications we have been able to read is still zero. What changed here is that we can finally see what one of these documents looks like, who signs it, how it is structured and what limits it accepts. That is worth a great deal even though the one we have is fifteen years old.

How we checked this

G.O. Ms. No. 108 was read from the Telangana transport department’s own website, and the schedule was transcribed row by row rather than summarised. Both provisos and the enabling clause are quoted exactly, including the spacing and punctuation of the original. The claim that no later compounding notification is published was checked against the department’s own notifications listing, which we also checked for signs of neglect and found current on other subjects.

The 2023-24 scheme is from contemporary press reports and is labelled throughout as reported. The police statement, the correction and the fact-checking findings are each attributed to who said them and when. Where we could not resolve a question — above all the ninety per cent question — we have set out the possibilities rather than choosing one.

Nothing here comes from a commercial challan-rate website, and we have not reproduced the Telangana rate tables that circulate on such sites.

What to do, in order

1. Check what is pending against your registration number on the official e-challan portal.
2. Ignore any message claiming a discount unless you can name the authority that announced it.
3. Never pay through a link that arrived with such a message — only through the official portal.
4. For each challan, note the penal section, because the schedule is organised by section.
5. Work out which column applies: motor cycle and light motor vehicle, or everything else.
6. Compare the amount demanded with the 2011 schedule, and if they differ, ask which notification the figure comes from.
7. Put that question in writing — by number and date — and keep the reply.
8. If the agriculturist proviso applies to you, say so in writing at the outset rather than afterwards.

What to keep

The challan with its penal section, which is what the schedule is indexed by. The registration number exactly as printed. The receipt, and the portal reference for any payment. Any written answer about which notification applies. For an agriculturist claiming the proviso, whatever establishes ownership and that the combination is not used for hire or reward. And the case number if a court has the matter.

Deliberately not on this page

Anything that would read identically in Hyderabad and in Delhi has been kept off this page: definitions, what happens to a prosecution after the file reaches a magistrate, the machinery governing electronic notices, the licensing chapter, the law on seizure and release. All of them live on their own pages here and are linked above wherever they become relevant. Four things are left, and all four belong to Telangana alone: the only section 200 notification these pages have managed to read, a proviso in which a state writes down its own ceiling, a half-rate for agriculturists that exists nowhere else, and a discount that reappears every December without ever having been announced.

When this needs an advocate

When a prosecution has been launched rather than a challan left pending. When a permit, a fitness refusal or a commercial fleet is exposed rather than one vehicle. When an order has been passed against you and something has to be filed against it. Not for comparing a figure against a published schedule, and not for writing the one question this page recommends.

What we do

Two things, and neither is practising law. We draft documents, and we run a directory in which describing a problem costs nothing.

On this page the recommendation is unusually specific. The document worth having is an RTI application asking whether any section 200 notification has been issued for Telangana after 18 August 2011. If a genuine scheme is open and your challans belong in it, a settlement petition is the document instead. If the challan itself is wrong, a written reply.

Court work is for your advocate, whose fee is engaged and paid by you directly; we do not quote, collect or share it.

What we could not verify

• Whether any compounding notification was issued for Telangana after 18 August 2011.
• What is actually being charged today, as against what the 2011 schedule says.
• The instrument behind the December 2023 discount scheme — all of it is reported.
• How an eighty or ninety per cent reduction sat with the statutory minimums in the amended Act.
• How many challans the 2023-24 scheme actually cleared, as against the amount collected.
• The appellate authority for licensing matters under the Telangana rules.
• Telangana’s position on section 194(1) overloading.
• Whether Andhra Pradesh has since issued its own notification in place of the 2011 one.
• Any Telangana High Court decision dealing directly with compounding of traffic offences.

What we charge

Nothing for asking and nothing for being put in front of an advocate. A document’s price is published on its own service page before anything is ordered, and no part of what we earn comes out of an advocate’s fee. The document this page actually recommends is the cheapest one we prepare, which is a reasonable test of whether we are recommending it for your sake or ours.

Questions people ask