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
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If permitted to be continued, it would amount to fresh commission of offence – The State Governments which have not yet withdrawn the notification, shall do it forthwith.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)
(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