L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) ONE late M. Muralidhar Reddy, the 1st petitioner in W. P. No. 8056 of 2002 was the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP21u 4158 and the said vehicle was engaged in transporting of essential commodities by the civil Supplies Department. The permit of the vehicle was valid till 1-2-2002. On 10-9-2001 he was issued a notice by the secretary, R. T. A. , Kurnool, stating that the vigilance and Enforcement Officials, kurnool through letter dated 7-7-2001 have informed that during the course of transporting the essential commodities for public distribution system, the vehicle carried the load over and above the permitted capacity. On that basis, the owner was required to pay a sum of Rs. 4,28,300. 00 under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as Act ).

( 2 ) HE filed an application for renewal of the permit. The same was rejected by proceedings dated 1-4-2002 on the ground that the amount of Rs. 4,28,300. 00 demanded through notice dated 10-9-2001 was not- paid. He filed W. P. No. 8056 of 2002 challenging the said proceedings.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died and therefore, his Legal Representatives i. e. , petitioners 2 to 5 were brought on record.

( 4 ) SMT. M. Rajeswari, wife of mr. M. Muralidhar Reddy filed an application before the Secretary, R. T. A. , kurnool, for transferring the ownership of the vehicle in her favour in view of the death of Mr. M. Muralidhar Reddy, She was informed through proceedings dt. 3-12-2002 stating that unless the amount of rs, 4,28,300/- is paid, her application cannot be considered. Challenging the same w. P. No. 7187 of 2003 is filed.

( 5 ) SRI K. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there did not exist any basis for demanding a sum of Rs. 4,28,300. 00 According to him, if any vehicle violates the restrictions as to load, the procedure contemplated under section 114 of the Act r/w 286 of A. P. Motor vehicles Rules has to be followed and in this case, such a procedure was not followed at all. According to him, the Vigilance and enforcement Officer of the Civil Supplies department is not conferred with any power, either to inspect or to report any violations as to overloading. Since the only basis for issuing notice dated 10-9-2001 was the so called letter of the Vigilance and enforcement Officer, the learned counsel submits that the whole demand as Weil as the consequential actions are vitiated.

( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader for transport on the other hand submits that the R. T. A. is competent to issue demand notices as and when any violations come to its knowledge. It is also submitted that if the petitioner had any explanation to the show-cause notice or any objections for the demand, he ought to have raised the same at appropriate point of time.

( 7 ) THE orders impugned in both the writ petitions are based on demand of rs. 4,28,300/- through notice dt. 10-9-2001. If the notice can be said to be valid, the consequential actions for non-compliance with the notice or demand therein can certainly be sustained. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether it was competent for the R. T. A. to make a demand as it did through the notice dated 10-9-2001.

( 8 ) THE only basis for demanding of rs. 4,28,300/- was that the Vigilance and enforcement Officer had addressed a letter on 7-7-2001 stating that during the course of transporting the essential commodities to various distribution points, the vehicle of the petitioner was overloaded. In this context, it needs to be noticed that Section 114 of the act prescribes the manner in which any action in the event of any vehicle carrying the load over and above the permitted capacity is to be initiated. The vehicle, suspected to be overloaded is required to be taken to the nearest Weigh Bridge and actual weighment be caused. It reads as under:"114. Power to have vehicle weighed:-- any person authorized in this behalf by the State Government m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document