The main legal point established is that the prescribed procedures under the Motor Vehicles Act, including weighment by an authorized officer and trial before imposing a fine, must be strictly followed.

ORDER :

Biswajit Mohanty, J.

1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 6.12.2007 under Annexure-3 by which the Regional Transport Officer, Sambalpur (opp. party No. 2) has directed the petitioner in its earlier form to deposit a fine of Rs. 13,46,80,527/- as the vehicles used by it were overloaded during the period April 2007 to July, 2007.

2. The petitioner was earlier known as M/s. Avian Overseas Pvt. Ltd. The case of the petitioner is that it operated a number of trailers transporting coals from different coal mines. A show cause was issued to the petitioner in its earlier form on 29.8.2007 vide Annexure-1 under Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short “the Act” as to why the Registration Certificates of 14 vehicles belonging to it, whose details were indicated therein should not be suspended for carrying over load. After receipt of the above noted show cause under Annexure-1, the petitioner in its earlier form submitted a petition before opp. party No. 2 praying for grant of time to submit the reply. Accordingly, on 14.9.2007 vide Annexure-2, time was granted time till 20.9.2007 for filing reply. Since the petitioner was unable to file reply on 20.9.2007 due to non-availability of relevant records, on the same date, another petition was filed for one month's time to file reply. Such prayer was partly allowed and the matter was posted to 1.10.2007 for filing show cause. On 1.10.2007, another petition for time was filed. However, on 11.10.2007, the opp. party No. 2 suspended the registration certificates of 14 vehicles which have been indicated under Annexure-1 on the ground of overloading. Being aggrieved by the above noted order of suspension, an appeal was filed under Section 57 of “the Act” before the Collector, Sambalpur which was numbered as M.V. Appeal No. 03 of 2007. On 17.10.2007, the appellate authority granted a conditional stay order and challenging such conditional stay order dated 17.10.2007, W.P. (C) No. 13317 of 2007 was filed. During pendency of the said writ application, the impugned order dated 6.12.2007 under Annexure-3 was issued imposing a fine of Rs. 13,46,80,527/- by opp. party No. 2. Challenging the same, the present writ application has been filed. Though several opportunities were given to opp. parties to file their counter, however no counter has been filed.

3. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty learned senior Counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the order under Annexure-3 is legally vulnerable as the same has been passed ignoring the provisions of Sections 113, 114 and 194 of “the Act”. In this context, he submitted that as per Section 114 of “the Act” only an authorized officer of motor vehicle department is authorized to get the vehicle weighed. Impugned order under Annexure-3 nowhere shows any such weighment by such authorized officer. Rather it refers to weighment figures as supplied by Deputy Director of Mines. Therefore, the order under Annexure-3 has been issued without following the provisions of law. He submitted that when law prescribes a particular thing is to be done in a particular way, the same should be done in that manner/way or not at all. In this context, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Babaria and another v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 502. Secondly, he submitted that no penal proceeding was ever initiated under Section 194 read with Section 114 of “the Act” against the petitioner before any competent court. He further submitted that Section 194 occurs under Chapter XIII of “the Act” which deals with “Offences, Penalties and Procedure” and the same provides for punishment for driving a motor vehicle in contravention of Sections 113, 114 and 115 of “the Act”. Prior to imposition of fine under Section 114 of “the Act” on the ground of overloading, the authority should have taken recourse to the provisions contained under Chapter-XIII of “the Act” but that h