The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of police officers to enforce penal provisions for overloading and impound documents under the Motor Vehicles Act.

As common question of facts and law are involved in both the Writ Petitions, they are taken up together and disposed of by common order.

.2. Brief facts leading to W.P.No.22033 of 2002 are as follows:

.The petitioner is the owner of a Public Carrier bearing registration No.KA-02-AA/1177, which is covered by a National Permit. When the said vehicle was passing through Dharmapuri, it was checked by the respondent on 11.05.2002 and issued with a memo, charging that the lorry was overloaded by 14,740 kgs, the driver was without uniform and disobeyed Traffic signal. On the basis of these charges, the respondent has seized the records of the vehicle, such as Registration Certificate, Permit, etc. On receipt of the information, the petitioner proceeded to Dharmapuri and requested the respondent to return the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and permit, siezed by him on 11.05.2002. Before the respondents, the petitioner pointed out that Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enables the State Government to prescribe the maximum laden weight that the vehicle may carry and Section 114 of the Act authorises only the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department authorised in this behalf of the State Government to proceed against the permit as per the said Section and Police Officers have no jurisdiction to take action against the petitioner. It is further submitted that in so far as the charge that the driver was not in uniform and disobeyed the Traffic signal, they are only petty offences and action may be taken against the driver. Though the petitioner has pointed out that the respondent in this Writ Petition has no jurisdiction to charge the petitioner for overloading, he has refused to return the records and insisted the petitioner to pay a compounding fee of Rs.5,000/- for the charge of overloading.

.3. The facts in W.P.No.23854 of 2002 are almost the same except to state that the registration number of the public carrier is KA-01-D/ 7689, it was intercepted and checked on 10.05.2002. On the charge of overloading by 15,020 kgs, the respondent herein seized the records of the vehicle, such as, Registration Certificate, permit etc., and demanded compounding fee of Rs.2,000/- for overloading.

4. Mr.R.Natesan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have no jurisdiction to lay a charge of overloading under Section 113 of the Motor Vehicle Act and as per Section 114 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State Government can authorise only the officers of the Motor Vehicle Department to lay the charge. He further submitted that the officer of the Motor Vehicles Department authorised in this behalf by the State Government, if he has reason to believe that a goods vehicle or trailer is being used in contravention of Section 113, require the driver to convey the vehicle to a weighing device, if any, within a distance of 10 KM., from any point on the forward route or within a distance of 20 KM., from the destination of the vehicle for weighment; and if no such weightment the vehicle is found to contravene in any respect the provisions of Section 113 regarding weight, he may, by order in writing, direct the driver to off-load the excess weight at his own risk and not to remove the vehicle or trailer from that place until the laden weight has been reduced. He further submitted that after off-loading the excess weight, the officer of the Motor Vehicles Department can endorse the relevant details of overloading on the goods carriage permit and intimate the fact of such endorsement to the authority which issued that permit. According to the learned counsel, excepting cancellation or suspension of permit by the permit issuing authority, the respondents, police officers have no authority to seize the records. Relying on an unreported judgment of the Karnatake High Court, in W.P.No.18327 of 2000, dated 11.01.2001, he further submitted that the respondents have no jurisdiction to issue police notice for overlo