IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02ND OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITIONS NO.100486-100503 OF 2014 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITIONS NO. 102928-102929, 104203-104204,
100360-100364, 100794, 100207-100208,
100159-100171, 108112, 107136, 106908, 107971,
104299, 107945, 107482 OF 2014,
38835 OF 2009, 63447-63458 OF 2009 AND
69015 OF 2010
WRIT PETITIONS NO.100486-100503 OF 2014
BETWEEN
1. HASSNSAB ALLABAKSH MULLANAVAR
AGE: 43 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
R/O. SUBHAS NAGAR, GUDIHAL ROAD, OLD HUBLITQ: HUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD
2. SHAKEEL AHMED KERUR
AGE: 32 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
R/O. H NO. 24, SIDDARAM NAGAR,2ND CROSS, GOPANKOPPAHUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD
3. RAMU DEVAKATEAGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
R/O. JANGALIPETH KURBAR ONI, HUBLI
2
2
DIST: DHARWAD
4. RUSTUMSAB APPASAHEB TEKADI
AGE:28 YEARS,OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 35/2, SADAR SOFA, OLD HUBLI,
HUBLI DHARWAD
5. ISHAPPA TEJAPPA MOTEKARAGE: 52 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
R/O. NEAR VAJRA HANUMAN NAGAR,IBRAHIMPUR BAGALKOT ROAD,
BIJAPUR, DIST: BIJAPUR
6. GANGAVVA W/O. G HOSAMANI
AGE: 40 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
R/O. H NO. 3, 5TH CROSS,BANKERS COLONY, HUBLI
TQ: HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD
7. GANGANAGOUD B HOSAMANIAGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 3, 5TH CROSS,BANKERS COLONY, HUBLI
TQ: HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD
8. MALLIKARJUN K ARALIMARAAGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. AT POST AGADI, TQ: HUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD
9. BASHIR AHMED R PATIL
AGE: 40 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
R/O. NEAR JOSHI HOSPITALIST CROSS, AYODHYA NAGAR,HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI
3
3
DIST: DHARWAD
10. SIDDIQUE BEGUM PATIL
AGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: OWNERR/O. BYALI BUILDING, NEAR KALYAN MANTAP,
3RD CROSS,AYODHYA NAGAR, HUBLI
TQ: HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD
11. SHRIKANT NAGAPPA AIHOLEAGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. KALMESHWAR NAGAR, NEAR BANNI TEMPLE,JANGALI PET, OLD HUBLI,
TQ: HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD
12. SUBHAS R HOSAMANI
AGE: 40 YEARS,OCC: OWNERR/O. SRI PADMAMADA CORPORATION BUILDING,
STALL NO. 1, P B ROADGARDEN PET, HUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD
13. MOHAMMED ALI ALLABAKSH MULLANAVAR
AGE: 30 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
R/O.JODALLI, TQ: KALGHATAGIDIST: DHARWAD
14. BASAVARAJ SANNATAMMAPPA PUJARAGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD
15. ASHOK NEELAPPA HITTALAMANI
AGE: 33 YEARS,OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 50, MARUTI CIRCLE
4
4
GANESH COLONY, NEKAR NAGAR,
OLD HUBLITQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD
16. MANJUNATH BASAVARAJ PUJARAGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 64/A, NEAR 2ND BOREWELL,
MARUTI CIRCLE, NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD
17. MEENAKSHI MARUTI MOTEKARAGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. ANAND NAGAR, NEAR WATER TANK,OLD HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD
18. IMAM HUSSAIN KUTUBUDDIN BASAPURIAGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 07, 2ND CROSSVEERABHADRA NAGAR, BELGAUM
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY DEPT. TRANSPORTM S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
UTTAR KANNADAKARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUTTAR KANNADA
KARWAR
5
5
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONKARWAR,
UTTAR KANNADA
5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
HONNAVAR, TQ:HONNAVARDIST: UTTAR KANNADA
6. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERKARWAR , TQ: KARWAR
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
7. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERSIRSI, TQ: SIRSIDIST: UTTAR KANNADA
... RESPONDENT(S)
(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR RESPONDENT STATE)
THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICTMAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTNO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDEANNEXURE-C; AND ETC.
WRIT PETITIONS NO.102928-102929 OF 2014
BETWEEN
1. SAMEENA PARVEENW/O,. MAQSOOD HONNYAL
AGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKR/O. HUBLI, TQ:HUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD
2. GAIBUSAB HONNYALS/O. MEHABOOBSAB
6
6
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESSR/O. HUBLI,
TQ:HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI F V PATIL & SRI PRUTHVI K S, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAR/BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT. OF TRANSPORT,M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUTTAR KANNADA
DIST: KARWAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONKARWAR
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
5. THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERHONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVARDIST: UTTAR KANNADA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5)
THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICTMAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THEIMPUNGED ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
7
7
NO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE
ANNEXURE-C.; AND ETC.
WRIT PETITIONS NO 104203-104204 OF 2014
BETWEEN
1. RAMASA N MISIKIN
AGE: 42 YEARSOCC: VEHICLE OWNERR/O. RON, TQ: RON
DIST: GADAG
2. ALLABAKSH A LATTIWALEAGE: 51 YEARS,OCC: VEHICLE OWNER
R/O. OLD HUBLI, TQ:HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. F V PATIL & PRUTHVI K S, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAR/Y DEPT. OF TRANSPORTM S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATEUTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
8
8
5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
HONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVARDIST: UTTAR KANNADA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-3 AND 45; SRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATE 16.06.2008 BEARING NO.DCB/MAG-1/CR-514/2007-08 PASSEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UTTARA
KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B.; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDTD.31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3/THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-C; AND ETC.
WRIT PETITIONS NO.100360-100364 OF 2014
BETWEEN
1. SYED KHAN HASSAN KHAN SHIVALLIAGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 69/1, TORVIHAKKAL, HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD
2. RAMANATHA PURUL
S/O. RAMASWAMYAGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
R/O. KAMALI VALASSUKADDANTHUR NORTH ARAVAI
TQ: KARUR
3. MUTTURAJA RAJAMANIAGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
D NO. 65, RAJA GOUNDAMPALYAMSTREET 7
9
9
TQ: TIRUCHENGODE,
DIST: NAMAKAL
4. LEO PETER S/O. LASARAGE: 40 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
GANDHI NAGAR, MADUKARAICOIMBATORE
5. RAJAMANI SEMBURAJEAGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. D NO. 57, RAJAGOUNDAMPALAYAM,
TQ: TIRUCHENGODEDIST: NAMAKAL
6. MAQSOOD MUQTIYAR PATELAGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. KUMAR CHINCHALI,
TQ: HUMANBAD, DIST: BIDAR
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
RPTD. BY DEPT OF TRANSPORTM S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
UTTAR KANNADAKARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUTTAR KANNADA
KARWAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONKARWAR
10
10
UTTAR KANNADA
5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
HONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVARDIST: UTTAR KANNADA
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR STATE)
THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICTMAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTNO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDEANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES - B &
C ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OFTHE STACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHERGOODS; AND ETC.
WRIT PETITION NO.100794 OF 2014
BETWEEN
RAJESH
S/O. VILASARAO BILLEAGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: VEHICLE OWNERR/O. BIDARI, TQ: KAGALKOLHAPUR,
MAHARASHTRA... PETITIONER
(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAR/BY DEPT. OF TRANSPORT
M S BUILDNG, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
11
11
BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
UTTAR KANNADAKARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUTTAR KANNADA
KARWAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONUTTAR KANNADA
KARWAR
5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
HONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVARDIST: UTTAR KANNADA
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5; SHRI SACHIN S. MABADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNEDORDER DATED 16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THEDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B;
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.10.2009 PASSED BY THERESPONDENT NO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA
VIDE ANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONSANNEXURES-B & C ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THETRANSPORTATION OF THE STACKING HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC.,
OF IRON ORE IN UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECTOF OTHER GOODS; AND ETC.
WRIT PETITIONS NO.100207-100208 OF 2014
BETWEEN
1. RAVI S/O RAMA NAIKAGE: 33 YEARS,OCC: VEHICLE OWNER
12
12
R/O. MARUTI POORA, SHEDGERI
ANKOLA, TQ: ANKOLADIST: UTTAR KANNADA
2. IMTIYAZ S/O. HUSSAIN SHAIKHAGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: OWNER
R/O. NEAR JAMIYA MASJIDKALASIGADDE, TQ: ANKOLA
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI F V PATIL , ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAR/BY DEPT. OF TRANSPORT
M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUTTARA KANNADA
DIST: KARWAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONUTTARA KANNADA
DIST: KARWAR
5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
HONNAVAR,TQ: HONNAVAR,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5; SHRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM AND SHRI P.R. BENTUR, ADVOCATES FOR
R4)
13
13
THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THEIMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTNO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE
ANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-B & CARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE
STACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; ANDETC.
WRIT PETITIONS NO.100159-100171 OF 2014
BETWEEN
1. KALLAPPA M GUNDURAGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. BAGAR PETH, OLD HUBLIHUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD
2. MOHAMMED HANIF YELLURS/O.IMAMSABAGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O.KILLEONI, MUNDGOD
DIST: KARWAR
3. BASAVARAJ S/O. SANNATAMAPPA PUJAR
AGE: 50 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
R/O. NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD
4. HASANSAB S/O. ALLABAKSH MULLANANARAGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. JODALLI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI
DIST: DHARWAD
14
14
5. PARAMESHWARAPPA
S/O. VEERBHADRAPPA MADIWALARAGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. CHOLACHAGUDDA,TQ: BADAMI
DIST: BAGALKOT
6. SUBASHS/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA HOSAMANIAGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O.SRI PADMAMBA TRANSPORT STALL NO. 1,
CORPORATION BUILDING, P B ROAD, HUBLITQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD
7. KHALLEEL AHMEDS/O.GANISAB PHANIBAND
AGE: 47 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
R/O. PLOT NO. 7, JANATA HOUSE,GOKUL DHAM, GUDIHAL ROAD, HUBLI,TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD
8. KASIMSAB MOHAMADSAH KURUBANNAVAR
AGE: 48 YEARS,OCC: OWNERR/O. MUNDGOD, TQ: MUNDGOD
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
9. FARZANA N SHAIKHAGE: 37 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
R/O. KAKARMATH, TQ ANKOLADIST: UTTAR KANNADA
10. NAZEER AHMED S/O. GOUSESAB KUSANURAGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. MAKABOLIYANAGAR,
TQ:HANAGAL,DIST: HAVERI
15
15
11. KHADAR GOUS
S/O. BABU SAB SHAIK SANADIAGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 35, SADASHIV NAGAR,OLD HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD
12. JAVED S/O. SHIRAJ SHAIKHAGE: 31 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
R/O. HULIDEVARAWADA, ANKOLATQ: ANKOLA
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
13. PAVAN M NAIK
AGE: 25 YEARS,OCC: OWNER
R/O. HULIDEVARAWADA, ANKOLATQ: ANKOLA
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAR/BY DEPT. OF TRANSPORT
M S BUILIDNG,DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONEUTTARA KANNADA
KARWAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONUTTARA KANNADA
16
16
KARWAR
5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
HONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVAR,DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR STATE;
SHRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDATED 16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THEIMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTNO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE
ANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURE - B & C AREAPPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE
STACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NO IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; AND
ETC.
WP NO 108112 OF 2014
BETWEEN
HOSNODDIN S/O HAJRATSAB SHAIKHAGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESSR/O. MIRJAN KUMTA
DIST: KARWAR... PETITIONER
(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS SECRETARYDEPT. OF TRANSPORT
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE
17
17
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUTTARA KANNADA
KARWAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION,UTTARA KANNADA
KARWAR
5. THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERHONNAVAR,TQ: HONNAVAR
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR STATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THEIMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTNO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE
ANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-B & CARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE
STACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; ANDETC.
WP NO 107136 OF 2014
BETWEEN
ADARSH SUJATA KALBHAGAGE: 28YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESSR/O. YELLAPUR, TQ: YELLAPURDIST: KARWAR
18
18
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAR/BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT. OF TRANSPORTM S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATEUTTARA KANNDA
KARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UTTARA KANNDAKARWAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONUTTARA KANNDAKARWAR
5. THE INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLE
& REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERHONAVAR, TQ: HONAVARDIST: UTTAR KANNADA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 AND R5; SHRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD: 16-06-2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT /THEDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B;QUASHING TEH IMPUGNED ORDER DTD: 31-10-2009 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADAVIDE ANNEXURE-C; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
DECLARING THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS- B & C ARE APPLICABLE ONLYIN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE STACKING,
19
19
HANDLING,EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTAR KANNADA
DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; AND ETC.
WP NO 106908 OF 2014
BETWEEN
BASAVARAJ S/O. SANNATAMAPPA PUJAR
AGE: 50YEARS,OCC: OWNERR/O. NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBLI
TQ:HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS SECRETARYDEPT. OF TRANSPORTM S BUILDING,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATEUTTARA KANNADA
KARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONUTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
HONNAVAR,TQ: HONNAVAR,
20
20
UTTARA KANNADA
KARWAR... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5; SHRI SACHIN S. MAGDUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICTMAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTNO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE
ANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-B & CARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THESTACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARA
KANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; ANDETC.
WP NO 107971 OF 2014
BETWEEN
ATIFUR REHMAN MANIYARAGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESSR/O. HUBLITQ:HUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD... PETITIONER
(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAR/BY ITS SECRETARYDEPT. OF TRANSPORT
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATEUTTARA KANNADA
21
21
KARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
5. THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERHONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVAR
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5;
SHRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THEIMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDEANNEXURE-C; AND ETC.
WP NO 104299 OF 2014
BETWEEN
SANDESH P BANT
AGE: 34 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. ANKOLA, TQ: ANKOLADIST: KARWAR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
22
22
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARYDEPT. OF TRANSPORT
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATEUTTARA KANNADA
KARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSI0NER
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
HONNAVAR,TQ: HONNAVARUTTARA KANNADA
KARWAR... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5; SHRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.16.06.2008 PASSEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UTTARAKANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE IMPUNGED ORDER DATED
31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3/THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; DECLARE
THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-A & B ARE APPLICABLE ONLYIN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE STACKING,HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARA KANNADA
DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; AND ETC.
WP NO 107945 OF 2014
BETWEEN
23
23
MEHARUNNISA W/O DAVALSAB BEPARIAGE: 55 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESSR/O. VISHAL NAGAR, OLD HUBLITQ:HUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD... PETITIONER
(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS SECRETARYDEPT. OF TRANSPORTM S BUILDING,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUTTARA KANNADA
KARWAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION,UTTARA KANNADA
KARWAR
5. THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
HONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVARUTTARA KANNADA
KARWAR... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5; SHRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OFCONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
24
24
DTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THEIMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDEANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-B & CARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE
STACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; AND
ETC.
WP NO 107482 OF 2014
BETWEEN
1. D KARPAGAMAGE: MAJOR
OCC: VEHICLE OWNER2900, 4TH CROSS
B S K IIND STAGEBANGALORE
2. RAJEEV B RADHAKRISHNANAGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVERCHERUNELLY, ERATAKULAM
PALAKKAD,DIST: PALAKKAD,DIST: KERALA
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY DEPT. OF TRANSPORTM S BUILDING,DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATEUTTARA KANNADA
25
25
KARWAR
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION,
UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR
5. THE INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLEREGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
HONAVAR, TQ:HONAVARDIST: UTTAR KANNADA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5;
SHRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THEIMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDEANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-B & CARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE
STACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; AND
ETC;
WP NO 38835 OF 2009
BETWEEN
SIKANDAR MULLAS/O ABDUL REHAMAN SAB
AGE : 37 YRSOCC:BUSINESS
R/O NEAR NANDISHWAR EXTN,GADAGDIST:GADAG
... PETITIONER
26
26
(BY SRI F V PATIL ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
UTTAR KANNADAKARWAR
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION
KARWARUTTAR KANNADA
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERKARWAR
UTTAR KANNADA... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
VIDE ANNEX-D DTD 31.10.09 PASSED BY THE R1; QUASH THEIMPUGNED COMPOSITE ORDER VIDE ANNEX-E DTD 16.6.08 PASSED
BY THE R1; GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER OF STAY, TO STAY THEOPERATION AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THEIMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEX-D DTD 31.10.09 PASSED BY THE R1
AND STAY THE IMPUGNED COMPOSITE ORDER VIDE ANNEX-E DTD16.6.08 PASSED BY THE R1 AND RELEASE THE VEHICLE; AND ETC.
WP NOs. 63447-63458 OF 2009
BETWEEN
1. ABDUL RAHIM, S/O.MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SAVANUROCC:BUSINESS, R/O CHIDANAND ROAD,SAVANUR NOW R/A MALADAR ONI
NEAR GARDENPET,HUBLI
2. ZAKIR HUSSAIN S/O AHAMADSAB JUGALPETOCC:BUSINESSR/O SHADAT COLONY
27
27
3RD CROSS, FODIHALL ROAD,
HUBLI
3. MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN S/O ALLUDDINSAB HULAGUROCC:BUSINESSR/O NEKARNAGAR ROAD,
JAVALI PLOT, OLD HUBLI,
4. MOHAMMAD ASIF S/O HASABSAB GODMALOCC:BUSINESSR/O MOHAMMADNAGAR, NARAYANSOFA,
OLD HUBLI,
5. NOORJAHAN W/O ALTAF SAYYEDBY HER GPA HOLDER SAYYED ALTAFAGE:54 YRS, OCC:BUSINESS
R/O NEAR BILAL MASJID, KAKURMATH,ANKOLA
6. FIROZ S/O MOHAMMAD HANIFF KUSUGAL
OCC:BUSINESS, R/A H.NO.45,VISHAL NAGAR, BEHIND SIDDAROODMATH,OLD HUBLI
7. SHAMSHUDDIN S/O SAYYED ABDUL
OCC:BUSINESS,R/A NEAR KUKARMATH, ANKOLA
8. ABDUL RAZAQ S/O MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN PATWEGAROCC:BUSINESS,
R/A H.NO.333, KOVLEKAR PLOTSADAR SOFA, OLD HUBLI
9. SAYYED YUSUF S/O SAYYED KAREEMOCC:BUSINESS,
R/O ISLAM GALLI, YELLAPUR
10. BASHEER A JAGALPETH S/O A JAGALPETH
OCC:BUSINESS,R/A 3RD CROSS, SADAT COLONY,
GUDIHAL ROAD, OLD HUBLI
28
28
11. SANGEETA V NAIK
OCC:BUSINESS,C/O MAHESH S NAIK, LAXMI TRANSPORT
H.NO.309, KALAMMA NAGAR, YELLAPUR
12. ABDUL SAMAD S/O ABDUL KARMI MAVINHALLI
OCC:BUSINESS,R/O MUSLIM GALLI, SIRSI
... PETITIONERS(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KARWAR
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS DIVISIONKARWAR
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
KARWAR... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 & 3; SHRI M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THESE W.Ps ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DT.16/6/2008 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DECLARETHAT THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC 133 OF THE
CR.P.C PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER, VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISWHOLLY ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW;QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 18/12/2008, 22/12/2008, 16/12/2008,
12/12/2008 AND 12/12/08 PASSED BY THE R-3 AT ANNEXURES-D,D2, D3, D4 & D5 RESPECTIVELY AND A DIRECTION MAY BE ISSUED
TO R-1 TO 3 TO REFUND RS.42,000/- RECOVERED FROM EACH OFTHE PETITIONERS; AND ETC.
WP NO 69015 OF 2010
BETWEEN
29
29
1. SYED S/O : LATE KHALEELSAB MARUF
AGE : 45 YEARS, OCC : OWNER OF LORRYBEARING NO.KA-17/A-6206
R/O : D.NO.1390/02, 3RD MAIN8TH CROSS, KTJ NAGAR,DAVANAGERE
2. NORTH KARNATAKA LORRY OWNERS
ASSOCIATES (REGD) REP. BY ITS SECRETARYSHIVANAND S DHORONIAGE : 34 YEARS,
HUBLI - 580 029... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATEKARWAR,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONKARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERKARWAR, U.K. DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP R1 & R3; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED:31/10/2009, PASSED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-HDATED:16/06/2008, PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT; QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-J DATED:19/11/2009, PASSED BYTHE 1ST RESPONDENT; AND ETC.
30
30
These petitions coming on for orders, this day, the Courtmade the following:
O R D E R
The commonness in these petitions is that the petitioners
are challenging the orders dated 16th June 2008 and 31st October
2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada who
is the Executive Magistrate of the District for the purpose of
Section 133 Cr.P.C, and sought for quashing the same. The
Assistant Regional Transport Officer (hereinafter referred to as
‘ARTO’ for short) referred the said orders of the Executive
Magistrate and issued show-cause notices directing the
petitioners as to why they should not be penalised by imposing
`42,000/- fine for having transported the goods in excess of the
weight prescribed to carry as the same is an offence under
Section 133 Cr.P.C. and Section 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The show-cause notices issued by the Regional
Transport Officers by referring the orders issued by the
Executive Magistrate, according to the petitioners is ultra vires of
provisions of Cr.P.C. and the Act. The learned counsel appearing
31
31
for the petitioners has challenged the impugned orders on the
following grounds. Firstly, the Executive Magistrate has no
jurisdiction and power to issue such notifications. Secondly, the
Executive Magistrate, has neither followed the procedures
prescribed under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. or the Act nor
issued preliminary or final notice and no specific order is passed
alleging the offence committed by the petitioners. The orders
passed in 2008-2009 have been made applicable in all the cases
wherever it is found that the vehicles are transporting goods
more than the prescribed limit.
3. The petitioners, who are the persons carrying iron
ore and the goods over and above the prescribed limit, have got
transport licence, fitness certificate, permit, etc. and as such
they do not suffer from any infirmities, however, it is alleged
that they are carrying goods more than the prescribed limit,
which is an error in the eye of law. Even if it is found that they
are transporting the goods which is in excess of the prescribed
limit, then as per the Notification dated 16th June 2008 passed
by the Executive Magistrate, Uttara Kannada it can be levied fine
32
32
of Rs.42,000/- approximately. Thereafter, another order has
been passed on 31st October 2009, reiterating the same amount
and fine. Both these orders are not in accordance with the
provisions of Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. Even if it is found that
they are transporting excess weight to the prescribed limit, in
view of the Government of Karnataka has issued notification on
3rd July 2000 under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
prescribing composition of certain offences; and as per the said
notification Item No.32, namely, driving a motor vehicle with
weight in excess of permissible weight, it is made Section 133,
134 read with 194 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the fine would be
Rs.2,000/- for having carried overload and Rs.1,000/- per tonne
of excess load together with liability to pay charges for off-
loading the excess load. If at all it is found that vehicles are
transporting the weight contrary to the said Sections, amount of
fine would be only as per notification dated 3rd July 2000.
However, show-cause notices have been issued to pay a fine of
Rs.42,000/-, it is contrary to the power delegated to the State
Government under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
officer, who has got power under Section 133 Cr.P.C. to pass
33
33
conditional order for removal of nuisance, has to exercise the
said power in a given case, whereas, in the instant cases, by
referring to the 2008-2009 notification, it is universally made
applicable to all the persons wherever carrying of excess weight
to reasonable extent permissible. The learned counsel submits
that the show-cause notice issued by ARTO is without authority
of law and hence, are to be set aside and further the impugned
action of the Executive Magistrate is in contravention of the said
provisions and the notification is ultra vires to provision of
Section 133 Cr.P.C.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
State submits that, as the impugned notices themselves reflect,
the petitioners were carrying goods in excess of prescribed limit
which is an offence and rightly the Executive Magistrate has
exercised his power. The said notifications were challenged
before this Court in Writ Petition No.7116 of 2009 and the same
came to be disposed of confirming the penalty order of 2008-
2009. The ARTO, who has issued show-cause notices, is also an
34
34
officer for the purpose of issuing such notices. Hence, no error
could be found and the petitions be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The Executive Magistrate of the District could invoke Section 133
Cr.P.C. since he is specially empowered under the provisions.
Even he could take action by exercising his power if it is found
that the vehicle is carrying the weight in excess of the
permissible limit and creating nuisance. As per the Executive
Magistrate, if the vehicle is carrying the goods in excess of the
permissible limit, then he has to take action as per the
procedure established under the said provisions and also under
Section 134 to 136 of the Cr.P.C. The said section, further read,
that the Executive Magistrate, on receiving the report of a Police
Officer or other information and on taking such evidence, if he
thinks fit, call upon the concerned to appear before himself or
some other officer of the Executive Magistrate. The reading of
the said provision, clarifies that a person against whom offence
is alleged has to be issued a notice to appear before him or any
other officer on his behalf and issue a show cause notice as to
35
35
why the order should not be made absolute. The preliminary
orders made by him has to be confirmed by passing a final order
on the basis of the procedures prescribed in the said provision,
viz. the issuance of preliminary notification, show-cause notice
providing an opportunity to him to defend whether he has
caused nuisance or not and only thereafter action has to be
initiated. Further, the procedure prescribed under Section 134
of the Cr.P.C. with regard to service of Notification of order
which provides that the order shall be served on the persons
against whom it is made and Section 135 of the Act compels a
person to obey the order so passed under Section 133 and 134
of the Act and any failure of compliance, Section 136 comes into
picture. Unless the procedure prescribed under the Act are
followed, the Executive Magistrate cannot compel a person to
pay the fine amount. The Magistrate has to clarify himself that
when a person is being condemned for an offence committed, he
shall be provided fullest opportunity to defend his case and the
order of this nature or any order should be issued only after
following the procedure prescribed therein. However criminal he
might be, but it is a fundamental rule that he shall be and is
36
36
entitled for an opportunity before being condemned. When such
fundamental rule is prevailing, in contravention of the same, the
Executive Magistrate, by referring 2008-2009 order, levying a
fine of Rs.42,000/- which is an error. The Executive Magistrate
should have levied such fine if the person committing offence is
liable, but before that, the procedure as provided under Sections
133 and 134 of the Act should have been followed. In the
instant cases, I do not find any such procedure being followed by
the Executive Magistrate.
6. The officers authorised under the MV Act also can
invoke the power provided under the Act to levy fine and the
excess loading vehicles. Section 194 of the MV Act and sub-
section (1) and (2) of the Act enables the officer to punish a
person with fine of Rs.2,000/- and additional amount of
Rs.1,000/- per tonne of excess load together with liability to pay
charges for off-loading the excess load. When such power is
there, he should have invoked and passed necessary orders
under these provisions. A person who is discharging his duties
under the provisions of law, he shall have to discharge his power
37
37
only as per such provisions strictly and effectively and he cannot
carry on the fiat issued by Executive Magistrate in the year
2008-2009, and it cannot be pressed into service unless they are
in consonance with the provisions of either Motor Vehicles Act or
Cr.P.C. What is provided under Section 194 of the Motor
Vehicles Act for levying fine on the transporters who are carrying
excess weight was substituted in the year 1984 by virtue of
eroding of money value in the course of time and by taking into
consideration, the present value of money a suitable fine has to
be inflicted very stringently in order to prevent mischief. Even
the Executive Magistrate could levy the amount of Rs.40,000/-
unless he follows the procedure prescribed therein, it is not
permissible for him to levy the fine. The procedure provided
under Cr.P.C. and Motor Vehicles Act is sine quo non to levy or
punish a person. As is stated earlier, however criminal a person
is, he could not be punished unless giving him fullest opportunity
to defend his case.
7. In the instant cases, the respondents have levied
fine by referring 2008-2009 order without ascertaining whether
38
38
the person committed the offence or not and without even
providing an opportunity of hearing the transporter as to
whether he has carried the excess weight over and above the
permissible limit. Unless such provisions are followed, no action
shall be taken under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the
petitioners were permitted to carry the weight, viz. laden weight.
If excess weight is found, it is an offence under the provisions of
Act and also under Indian Penal Code. Carrying excess load is
against public policy is a nuisance and it affects the public at
large. The State and Central Governments lay the road
depending upon the vehicles that ply on that particular load and
bearable weight on the road. When such roads have been built
in a scientific manner and if are used improperly by carrying load
more than what is permissible limit, then they have to be
prevented strictly and as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act,
Cr.P.C. and Indian Penal Code and other provisions including the
National Highways Act, 1956.
8. In the light of the observations made, it is found that
the show-cause notices issued by Assistant Regional Traffic
39
39
Officer demanding payment of Rs.42,000/- per truck by referring
2008-2009 order which is without authority of law and are liable
to be set aside. Accordingly they are set aside.
9. The Assistant Regional Traffic Officer, Karwar in his
show-cause notice dated 16th August 2004 which is issued in
respect of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22/B-1169 directed
the petitioners to show cause within seven days and to produce
the documents as per Section 200 of the MV Act and also fine as
per the order of the Executive Magistrate dated 16th June 2008
and 31st October 2009 and the said show-cause notice has not
indicated as to whether there is a specific finding against the
petitioner for having committed an offence as per the
notification. Under the circumstance, the said notification are
set aside. Liberty is reserved to Executive Magistrate and also to
the ARTO to pass necessary orders as per law and the procedure
prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, Cr.P.C. and Indian
Penal Code as also the National Highway Authorities Act, 1956.
10. With these observations all the petitions stand
disposed of. The fine amount deposited by the petitioners in