Jharkhand High Court
West Singhbhum Truck Owners' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 August, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2007(4)JCR139(JHR)]
Author: M. Karpaga Vinayagam
Bench: M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Amareshwar Sahay
JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.
1. West Singhbhum Truck Owners' Welfare Association, Chaibasa, through this Public Interest Litigation, bringing to the notice of this Court the fact that the respondent-State Government has not been taking effective steps for-the compliance, implementation and strict adherence of the provisions of Sections 113, 114 and 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act and for complying with the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Paramjit Bhasin and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. resulting in mass and rampant movement of trucks and lorries carrying the weight beyond the prescribed limits causing several kinds of hazards, such as damage of road etc. and serious nature of accidents, has prayed for a direction to the respondent to ensure the strict adherence of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and for compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court.
2. According to the petitioner, due to rich mining activities in the districts of West Singhbhum and East Singhbhum, there are number of transport companies operating in the districts and involving the uncontrolled movement of vehicles with overloading, which has been constantly violating the provisions of Sections 113, 114 and 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, causing serious accidents, apart from giving premium to the smuggling and illegal lifting of valuable minerals from the said districts.
Despite the fact that it has been brought to the notice of the respondents both State level and Central level on various occasions, all fell on deaf ears. Since No. positive action has been taken by the State Government for implementation of the relevant provisions of the Act, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court on the strength of the Supreme Court directions given in the case of Paramjit Bhasin and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2006 (1) JCR 303 (SC) : 2006 (1) JLJR (SC) 34.
3. On service of notice, on behalf of Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, counter-affidavit has been filed. This Court, being not satisfied with the said counter, which was bereft of any details, directed the State Government, by the order dated 23.4.2007, to file counter-affidavit, giving details of the steps taken so far and also the future modalities for curbing the above referred menace. Accordingly, one Mr. Avinash Kumar, the Transport Commissioner, on behalf of the State, has filed the counter-affidavit, giving the details of the steps so far taken. According to him, for the prevention of overloading, the State authorities have been implementing the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act regularly and efficiently and he, being a Senior Government Official, taking much interest to implement the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act within the State, gave strict directions through which overloading in the trucks has to be checked.
4. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the State and Central Government and gone through the affidavits filed by the respective parties.
5. Even though some data relating to collection of fine of several crores of rupees for years 2004 to 2007 in areas of Jhamshedpur, Chibasa, Sarikella and Kharsawan have been given in the counter-affidavit filed by the Transport Commissioner, showing implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Enforcement Officer, we are not satisfied with the same, since we notice that still overloading has not been curtailed, as a result of which there is rampant movement of trucks and lorries carrying weight beyond the prescribed limits causing damages to the road and serious nature of accidents. As such, we are constrained to hold that there is no effective implementation of the relevant provisions of the Act.
6. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Paramjit Bhasin and Ors. (supra) gave specific directions to take appropriate steps to ensure appropriate compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as follows:
Section 200 does not in any way authorize the State Government to permit the excess weight to be carried when on various inspection/detention, it is noticed that there is carriage of load beyond the permissible limit. It only gives an opportunity of compounding so that instead of the amounts fixed, lesser amounts can be accepted by the authorized officers. The intention of uploading the excess weight is apparent from a bare reading of Section 194(1). The liability to pay charge for uploading of the excess load is fixed on one who drives a vehicle or causes a motor vehicles to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Sections 113, 114 and 115. It is to be noted that compounding can be done either before or after the institution of the prosecution in respect of the enumerated offences. Any notification which runs counter to the clear import of Section 194 has no validity. As rightly submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners after compounding the excess load, same cannot be permitted to be carried in the concerned vehicle. Such carriage would amount to infraction of Section 113 of the Act....
It is indisputable that the power of compounding vests with the State Government, but the notification issued in that regard cannot authorized continuation of the offence which is permitted to be compounded by payments of the amounts fixed. If permitted to be continued, it would amount to fresh commission of the offence for which the compounding was done.... It is for the State Governments concerned to make necessary arrangements to ensure that the difficulties highlighted can be suitably remedied by the State Government themselves without in any way overstepping statutory prescriptions.
7. The aforesaid observations giving directions to the State Governments would clearly indicate that the State Government has been specifically asked to curtail the movement of the vehicles being run with overloading. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court categorically held that if a vehicle is detected with overloading, excess load has to be necessarily off-loaded, besides levy of fine/compounding fee before allowing the vehicle to proceed further. Therefore, imposition of fine or compounding the same, collection of fines and giving detailed quantum of the same would not remove the menace; on the other hand, effective steps have to be taken by the Government Officials concerned to ensure that excess load is off-loaded and similar kinds of offences, which cause damage to the road and serious nature of accidents, are not repeated. In the counter-affidavit filed by him, the Transport Commissioner gave undertaking that in future, the State will take effective and suitable steps and give sufficient attention to implement the provisions of the Act as well as the directions of the Supreme Court.
8. In the light of the above fact situation and also in the light of the undertaking given by the Transport Commissioner of the State, this Court is constrained to reiterate and give the very same directions at least to see that in future, the violation of the important provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and also non-compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court is not committed. Accordingly the following directions are given:
(A) The State Authority is to take special care in the matter of implementation of the provisions of Sections 113, 114 and 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act including Sections 177, 190 and 194 for checking overloading beyond the prescribed limits as fixed by the State Government.
(B) The trucks, if found carrying overloading, must be off-loaded and then suitable fines will be imposed against the vehicle owners and drivers and only on realisation of fines, the vehicles can be allowed to proceed further.
(C) The State Government, as mentioned in the Order No. 6 of 2005-06 dated 18.3.2006, is directed to constitute a Task Force for all the four Zones of the State for regulation of action against the offending vehicles.
(D) The State Government is further directed to constitute a Monitoring Committee at the State level to ensure proper implementation of the provisions of the Act as well as the directions given by the Supreme Court and this Court.
To implement the directions of the Supreme Court, the State Government has to immediately make arrangements to install check posts at different entry points of the State without any further delay.
(F) The Transport Commissioner, the Senior Officer of the State, is required to follow the above directions without giving any room for complaint and breach of his undertaking.
With these directions, this petition is allowed.
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
9. I agree.