Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The grounds taken by the petitioner in his writ petition was that the impugned letter which was an executive instruction from the authorities was violative of the provisions of the M.V. Act, which made the offence of overloading a compoundable offence under section 200 of the M.V. Act and hence the direction of criminal prosecution for the offence of overloading without satisfying the condition precedents for invoking the provisions of the PDPP Act amounted to violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India to practise Trade and Commerce including the Transport business without any unreasonable obstruction. It was also claimed that initiation of proceedings under the M.V. Act and the PDPP Act amounts to double jeopardy causing unreasonable and arbitrary restriction on the business of transportation which is an established trade of the petitioner. Petitioner has also taken the ground that despite noticing the facts that there may be possibility of damage to the road surface, pollution and safety hazard, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had recommended the exercise of powers under the M.V. Act apart from taking sufficient steps for strict enforcement of the provisions relating to overloading under the M.V. Act, and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It was further claimed that the authorities are putting the transporters, including the petitioner to arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions under the threat of prosecution severely affecting petitioner‟s right to pursue his transport business, as the impugned executive instruction issued by the authorities has conferred unbridled and unguided power upon the authorities to prosecute the allegedly overloaded vehicles without instruction to determine the factum of damage before initiating any prosecution.

12. Learned counsel for the intervener respondent submitted that plying of commercial vehicles, overloaded beyond the prescribed limit, had been causing serious damage to the roads of Bihar since several years resulting in great

- 11 -

losses and difficulties not only to the intervener‟s Association and its members but also to the other commercial and private vehicles of the State. He further claimed that the intervener respondent had been raising this matter before the authorities concerned since much before and only after due enquiries made in that regard the authorities had passed the impugned orders which were quite legal and justified.

13. From the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is apparent that undisputedly petitioner is the owner of the Truck bearing Registration No.JH-02M-2857 which was loaded with coal and was intercepted on the Grand Trunk Road in the district of Aurangabad by the District Transport Officer, Aurangabad (respondent no.4) because it was found to be overloaded by 19,980 Kg. as the maximum R.L. weight allowed as per the registration certificate granted for the said vehicle was 25,000 Kg., but it was found to be weighing 44,980 Kg. as per Kanta Challan (Annexure 1 series). Accordingly, an F.I.R. bearing Aurangabad (M) P.S. Case No.135 of 2010 dated 17.08.2010 (Annexure-1) was lodged making the owner of the vehicle, namely the petitioner as an accused for plying an overloaded vehicle exceeding the limit prescribed in the certificate of registration punishable under sections 177, 194, 113 and 114 of the M.V. Act. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the said action as it is punishable only with fine under the provision of section 194 of the M.V. Act which is also compoundable under section 200 of

(g) of the Constitution of India, but that restriction has to be reasonable. In the instant case the right of the petitioner to ply his vehicle on the public road is not taken away rather by the provisions of the PDPP Act he is only required to ply his vehicle on the public roads in the manner prescribed in law so that the

- 24 -

public property, including the public roads are not damaged. Thus the restriction is quite legal and reasonable.

33. Furthermore it is quite apparent from the materials on record that the government and its authorities had very carefully conducted several studies and considering the said Studies and Reports etc. as is apparent from Annexure-B, Annexure-C, Annexure-D and Annexure-E had found that among the reasons for any premature damages to the public road, the overloading of vehicles is the main cause which not only causes considerable damage to the road networks but also contributes to the serious problems of maintaining road safety on our roads. Thus the factum of damage caused to the public road by overloaded vehicles had been fully considered by the authorities before taking the impugned steps. The vehicle of the petitioner was found to be overloaded after getting it weighed at the appropriate weighing facility, namely Kanta Challan, which is fully proved by Annexure-1 series.