Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Truck Operators Union vs State (Transport Dep )Anr on 18 September, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
1. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14826/2014
Truck Operators Union, Hanumangarh having its Office at Ward
No.15, Near Doda Petrol Pump, Hanumangarh Town, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan through its President, Shri Jugal Kishore
S/o Shri Ram Gopal, aged about 65 years, R/o 5-Mahesh Dal Mill,
Hanumangarh Junction, Ward LL-10, District Hanumangarh, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Transport
Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Transport Commissioner, Department of Transport,
Pariwahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Food Corporation of India through its General Manager,
having its Office at Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
4. Janta Tractor Trolley Operator Chalak Union having its Head
Office at Hanumangarh through its President, Julfkar Ali S/o Shri
Wali Mohammed R/o New Khunja, Ward No.4, Hanumangarh
Junction, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
Connected With:-
2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2188/2013 Hari Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Naneg Ram Sharma, aged about 45 years, by caste Brahman, R/o 9/304, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Transport, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur.
2. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director General of Police, State of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
3. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4563/2014
1. Desh Bhushan Sharma S/o Shri Prem Narain Sharma, aged about 30 years, R/o Plot No.12, Surya Nagar-D, Benad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
(2 of 9) [ CW-14826/2014]
2. Vikram Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Sohan Singh Shekhawat aged about 30 years, R/o Village Maharoli, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Director-cum Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahakar Marg, Jyoti Marg, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways through its Principal Secretary, 5th Floor, Transport Bhawan 1, Sansad Marg, Gokul Nagar, Sansad Marg Road area, New Delhi 110001.
4. Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. Director, Rajasthan Pollution of Control Board, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur Rajasthan, 302004.
6. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Shree Cement Bangur Nagar Post Box No.33 Beawar Ajmer (Raj.).
7. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Highway Authority of India, Transport Bhawan 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001.
----Respondents
4. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9595/2015 Nityendra Manav S/o Shri Babu Lal, by caste Balai, aged about 35 years, R/o 783, Shyan Colony, Village Pawta, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. The Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Rajasthan Transport Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Hasanpura, Jaipur.
4. The Commissioner, Rajasthan Transport Department, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur.
5. The Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Nigam, Jaipur.
6. The Secretary, National Highways Authorities of India, New Delhi, India.
(3 of 9) [ CW-14826/2014]
7. The Director, Mines and Geological Departments Rajasthan, Udaipur.
----Respondents
5. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1089/2017 Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Gulab Singh, aged about 32 years, R/o Ward No.1, Near by Chhani Ki Taksal, Gothda, Khetri Nagar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through it's Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Principal Secretary, Rajasthan Transport Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Hasanpura, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Circle Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
5. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
6. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr.Ashwani Chobisa, Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Mr.Vidhut Kumar Gupta for Mr.Narpat Singh, Mr.Iliyas Khan for Mr.Tanveer Ahmed & Ms.Neerja Khanna.
For Respondents : Mr.N.M. Lodha, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Sheetanshu Sharma, Mr.G.S. Gill AAG, Mr.Kamlendra Sihag, Mr.Mukesh Kumar Verma, Dr.A.S. Khangarot AGC & Mr.Arnav Singh for Mr.Sandeep Pathak. _____________________________________________________ (4 of 9) [ CW-14826/2014] HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI Judgment 18/09/2017
1. The above captioned writ petitions raise an issue in public interest concerning overloaded trucks plying in the State of Rajasthan as also goods being transported on trolleys attached to tractors. The writ petitions highlight various instances of overloaded trucks being permitted to ply on the National Highway. As per the respondents all possible steps are being taken and have been taken in the past to prevent overloaded trucks plying on the National Highways in the State of Rajasthan as also trolleys being used for carting goods.
2. 161 flying squads have been deployed through out the State for checking of overloaded vehicles and in the year 2013-14 121471 vehicles were challaned for overloading and ₹86 crores was recovered as penalty. From 1.4.2014 to 31.10.2014, 13200 vehicles were challaned for overloading and penalty in the sum of ₹115 crores was levied. To enforce the law, as is evident from the reply filed in DBCWP No.4563/2014, large yards have been created at check-posts and computers have been installed at weigh-bridges.
3. Legislative provisions which have a bearing on the issue raised in the writ petitions are Sections 113, 114, 194 and 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They read as under:-
"113. Limits of weight and limitations on use - (1) The State Government may prescribe the conditions for the issue of permits for [transport (5 of 9) [ CW-14826/2014] vehicles] by the State or Regional Transport Authorities and may prohibit or restrict the use of such vehicles in any area or route.
(2) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, no person shall drive or cause or allow to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle which is not fitted with pneumatic tyres.
(3) No person shall drive or cause or allow to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle or trailer -
(a) the unladen weight of which exceeds the unladen weight specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, or
(b) the laden weight of which exceeds the gross vehicle weight specified in the certificate of registration.
(4) Where the driver of person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer driven in contravention of Sub-
section (2) or Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) is not the owner, a court may presume that the offence was committed with the knowledge of or under the orders of the owner of the motor vehicle or trailer.
114. Power to have vehicle weighed . : (1) Any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department authorized in this behalf by the State Government shall, if he has reasons to believe that a goods vehicle or trailer is being used in contravention of Section 113 require the driver to convey the vehicle to a weighing device, if any, within a distance of ten kilometers from any point on the forward route or within a distance of twenty kilometers from the destination of the vehicle for weighment; and if on such weighment the vehicle is found to contravene in any respect the provisions of Section 113 regarding weight, he may, by order in writing, direct the driver to off-load the excess weight at his own risk and not to remove the vehicle over trailer from that place until the laden weight has been reduced or the vehicle or trailer otherwise been dealt with so that it complies with Section 113 and on receipt of such notice, the driver shall comply with such directions.
(2) Where the person authorized under sub section (1) makes the said order in writing, he shall also endorse the relevant details of the overloading on the goods carriage permit and also intimate the fact of such endorsement to the authority which (6 of 9) [ CW-14826/2014] issued that permit.
194. Driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight :
(1) Whoever drivers a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Section 113 or Section 114 or Section 115 shall be punishable with minimum fine of two thousand rupees and an additional amount of one thousand rupees per tonne of excess load, together with the liability to pay charges for off-loading of the excess load.
(2) Any driver of vehicle who refuses to stop and submit his vehicle to weighing after being directed to do so by an officer authorized in this behalf under Section 114 or removes or cause to removal of the load or part of it prior to weighing shall be punishable with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees.
200. Composition of certain offences : (1) Any offence whether committed before or after the commencement of this Act punishable under Section 177, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180, Section 181, Section 182, subsection (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 183, Section 184, Section 186, Section 189, Sub-section (2) of Section 190, Section 191, Section 191, Section 194, Section 196, or Section 198, may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by such officers or authorities and for such amount as the State Government may, by notification in official gazette, specify in this behalf.
(2) Where an offence has been compounded under Sub-section (1) the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of such offence."
4. The grievance in the writ petitions does not relate to the penalties being compounded at the rates prescribed but to the fact that either after taking the penalty or by charging royalty for the mineral if the goods being transported is a mineral, the trucks are allowed to move on the highway and to make good the point the receipts annexed as Annxs.20 & 21 collectively and Annx.22 in (7 of 9) [ CW-14826/2014] DBCWP No.2188/2013 are relied upon. The receipts would show that on transport vehicles, which are trucks, minerals in excess of the permissible load, on being detected, resulted in recovery of Royalty for the mineral being transported. The vehicle was allowed to move forward.
5. On this aspect of the matter, in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 2006 SC 440 : Paramjit Bhasin & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. , it was directed as under:-
"Section 200 does not in any way authorize the State Government to permit the excess weight to be carried when on various inspection/detection 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 authorised officers. The intention of off-loading the excess weight is apparent from a bare reading of the Section 194(1). The liability to pay charge for off- loading of the excess load is fixed on one who drives a vehicle or causes a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Sections 113-115. 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. The object for which the maximum permissible weights have been fixed is crystal clear. On a perusal of the provisions it is clear that the maximum gross weight (in short 'GVB') of the trucks is 16.2 tonnes which enables loading of about 9 tonnes. The load rating is primarily based on the road design, specifications of Indian roads. Rule 95(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short 'the Central Rules') prescribes the principles which cover the fixation of GVB of the vehicles. The same reads as follows:
(8 of 9) [ CW-14826/2014] "Rule 95(2): The maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of a vehicle shall, having regard to the size, nature and number of types and maximum weight permitted to be carries by the types as per Sub-rule (1), be -
i. Vehicle rating of the gross vehicle weight and axel weight respectively as duly certified by the testing agencies for compliance of the Rule 126, or ii. the maximum vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of each vehicle respectively as notified by the Central Government, or iii. the maximum total load permitted to be carried by the tyre as specified in Sub-rule (1) for the size and the number of the tyres fitted on the axles (s) of the vehicle.
Whichever is less:
Provided that the maximum gross vehicle weight in respect of all vehicles, including multi axle vehicles not be more than the sum total of all the maximum safe axle weights put together."
6. Thus, with respect to this grievance raised in the writ petitions we direct the respondents to ensure that the law declared by the Supreme Court is adhered to and if any vehicle is detected with excess load, after levying the penalty the excess goods would be deloaded from the truck and only when the truck is loaded within the permissible load would it be allowed to ply further.
7. From the reply filed we find that the State has taken adequate steps to prevent overloading, but the reason for the menace continuing is that the transporters probably find it convenient to pay a fine when detected with overload and after paying the fine move along. Only (9 of 9) [ CW-14826/2014] when the fear of enforcement of the law, requiring excess goods to be deloaded is instilled, the problem would continue. The respondents would therefore ensure as above.
8. As regards goods being carted on tractor-trolleys we find that the respondents are taking action as per law and other than farm produce the grievance of transportation of goods on tractor-trolleys has been suppressed to a very large extent. No directions are therefore needed, save and except to direct the respondents to continue to be vigilant and ensure that on trolleys attached to tractors, other than farm produce no goods are permitted to be transported.
9. Even as regards the farm produce it should be ensured that the farmer uses the tractor-trolley to transport the farm produce from the farm till the nearest mandi and not for general transport purpose. The competent authority is directed to issue immediate directions to the flying squads to ensure compliance with this direction.
10. The petitions are disposed of.
11. No costs.
(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),C.J.
Anil Goyal-PS/51-55