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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13401

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ
P.B.SATHEESH – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 44116 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.G.KIRAN, SHRI.AMAR S.R., SRI.R.KISHORE
For the Respondents: ADV SHRI.SUVIN R.MENON, ADV. BIDAN CHANDRAN, ADV. SUVIN R MENON, ADV. NEEMA T V

The court emphasizes the importance of strict enforcement of vehicle loading restrictions under applicable laws and mandates the implementation of a comprehensive SOP to address challenges of overloading on National Highways.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the implementation of loading restrictions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The court acknowledges the petitioner's grievance regarding the inaction of the authorities against overloading of vehicles and mandates the finalization and strict implementation of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for enforcement within a set timeframe. The court frames the issues around the responsibility of stakeholders in enforcing weight regulations and emphasizes adherence to established procedures. The final ruling facilitates comprehensive compliance measures, directing the Government to ensure proper implementation of the SOP and a subsequent compliance report to the court.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's grievance on overloading a vehicle. (Para 1 , 2)
2. submissions from authorities about measures for addressing vehicle overloading. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's emphasis on the establishment and enforcement of the sop. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. direction for compliance reporting and overarching judgments. (Para 9 , 10)

J U D G M E N T

Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.

The petitioner is the Director of Nerkazhcha Association, a Non-Governmental Organisation registered under the Companies Act, 2013. According to the petitioner, the Central Government had issued gazette notifications, policy circulars, and memoranda regarding the maximum allowable load-carrying limits for each class of heavy vehicles, which include trucks, trailers, and tractors. A copy of the gazette notification dated 18.10.1996, issued by the 1st respondent regarding the specification of maximum gross vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight for heavy vehicles in India has been produced as Ext.P11.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 9th respondent has not yet taken any action against the overloading of vehicles. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction to the 2nd respondent for the strict implementation of Ext. P11 measures under the policy circular.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 3rd and 8th respondents for the strict implementation of Ext.P3.

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 10th respondent only to issue transit pass in accordance with the Ext.P11 weight restriction for each consignment.”

3. When this matter came up for consideration on 28.10.2025, it was submitted before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority of India that, pursuant to detailed deliberations and after obtaining considered inputs from the petitioner herein, the NHAI had finalized a draft proposal outlining a set of measures intended to curb and prevent the recurring menace of overloading of trucks on National Highways. It was further submitted before this Court that the said draft would be placed for consideration at a meeting jointly convened by the NHAI on one side and the Transport Commissioner (7th respondent), together with the Kerala Road Safety Authority (11th respondent), on the other.

4. The learned Government pleader submitted before this Court that steps shall be taken to convene the said meeting, and the outcome and the decision would be communicated to this Court.

5. In terms of the said submissions, directions were issued to the 5th respondent and the NHAI to ensure that comprehensive deliberations were carried out among all principal stakeholders on the issues involved, with a view to formulating a detailed and enforceable Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). We had directed that the SOP be finalised and placed before this Court within a period of two weeks.

6. In pursuance of the same, a memo has been filed by the learned Government Pleader enclosing the approved copy of the SOP for enforcement against overloading of goods vehicles on National Highways, as approved by the Government.

7. We consider it necessary to extract the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), which lays down a uniform and structured mechanism for the detection, verification, and enforcement of overloading of goods vehicles on National Highways through the use of Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) systems and Static Weigh Bridges (SWB). The SOP has been framed with the specific object of ensuring strict and effective enforcement action against vehicle owners, operators, and drivers in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989. The procedure is intended to eliminate ambiguity, secure consistency in implementation, and ensure that violations are dea

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top