SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Raj) 2536

Supreme Court
Honble ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Honble C.K. THAKKER, J.
Parmajit Bhasin & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. W.P. (Civil) No. 136 of 2003
Decided On : November 09, 2005

Advocates Appeared:
Rani Chhabra (Mrs.), Ms. Gauri Chhabra and Ms. Sudha Pal, Advocates, for Petitioners, Mohan Prasaran, Addl. Solicitor General, Dr. R.G. Padia, Sr. Advocate, Anil Katiyar (Mrs.), Manish Tiwari, Gaurav Dhingra, Chidanand D.L., Nitesh Rana, B.K. Prasad, Vive

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 194, 200 and 113, 114, 115 and Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rule 95(2) – Driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight which is an offence – u/Sec. 200 there is composition of certain offences – Offence committed u/Sec. 194 is made compoundable u/Sec. 200 – Notification issued by various State Governments permitting carriage of excess weight after compounding – Held – Power of compounding vests with the State Government but by notification State can not authorize continuation of the offence permitted to be compounded by payment of the amount fixed – If permitted to be continued, it would amount to fresh commission of offence – The State Governments which have not yet withdrawn the notification, shall do it forthwith. (Paras 5, 7 & 12)

       

Honble PASAYAT, J.–In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950(in short the Constitution) the petitioners have questioned legality of certain notifications purportedly issued by various States like Punjab and Haryana, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh under the provisions of Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the `Act). Stand of the petitioners is that by the notifications certain acts outside the ambit of Section 200 of the Act have been covered, though those were committed in clear violation of mandate of Sections 113 and 114 read with Section 194 of the Act. The notifications have been issued which in effect condone the offence and permit its continuance though legally no such continuation could have been permitted. It is the stand of the petitioners that under the Act and the Rules made thereunder the maximum gross weight of the vehicles, more particularly, transport vehicles have been fixed. Both under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short the `Old Act) and the Act maximum gross weight for each axle of a truck in relation to the size and number of tyres fitted therein is prescribed. The Ministry of Surface and Transport was empowered by the Old Act and the Act to specify maximum gross weight and maximum weight of transport vehicles. Chapter VII of the Act deals with construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. Section 110 empowers the Central Government to make Rules in respect of several matters. Power has also been conferred to make Rules under Sections 111. As a part of Chapter VII under the heading ``Control of Traffic the limits of weight and limitations on use have been prescribed under Section 113. Section 114 deals with the powers to have vehicle weighed. Section 194 makes driving of vehicles exceeding permissible limit an offence and consequences of contravention of the provisions contained in Sections 113, 114 and 115 have been set out. Section 200 deals with composition of certain offences under several sections including Section 194.

(2). As noted above, stand of the petitioners is that what is permissible is composition of offences punishable under Section 194. It does not, however, permit continuance of the infraction after the compounding. Illustratively it is state that when any person drives or allows to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle exceeding the specified weight (in terms of Section 113(3) the excess weight has to be off-load at the cost of the transporter. But in essence notifications issued by State Government permit carriage of the excess weight after compounding.

(3). The Union of India in its response has pointed out that when several notifications issued by various State Governments were brought to the notice of the Central Government, it resulted in anxious consideration by the officials of the Central Government. Several meetings were called and the State Governments were given suitable directions for withdrawal/modification of the notifications. Some of the States to whom notices were issued in the present case have filed counter-affidavits while others have orally submitted about action taken by them, on the basis of the discussions held at the meeting with the Central Government officials. We shall deal with the individual cases later on.

(4). Sections 113, 114, 194 and 200 read as follows :

``113. Limits of weight and limitation on use–(1) The State Government may prescribe the conditions for the issue of permits for [transport 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 excee






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top