Vikash Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 February, 2011
11. It was further argued that several studies have
been conducted on the road crust damages due to overloading
of commercial vehicles, which is quite apparent from letter
dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure-B) issued by the Secretary of the
Road Construction Department to the Secretary of Road
Transport Department and hence action had to be taken under
the PDPP Act which was specifically enacted for that purpose,
whereas the provisions of the M.V. Act are only with respect to
the violation of the permit and certificate of registration, hence
there being two separate causes of action, there is no question
of any double jeopardy as had been decided by the Apex Court
in case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Veereshwar Rao
Agnihotri, reported in AIR 1957 Supreme Court 592 as
well as by this court in case of Ishodanand Biswas and others
vs. The State, reported in AIR 1955 Patna 396. Thus, he
asserted that the action of the authority concerned was well
within the scope and precinct of the Constitution and the
concerned enactments.