IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32099 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KOLLAM DISTRICT LORRY OWNERS ASSOCIATION (DISTRICT UNIT OF SOUTHERN LORRY OWNERS ASSOCIATION), REG.NO.Q.575/08, REP. BY THE PRESIDENT V.RAJEEVAN, CHARUVILA MELETHIL, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, PUNALUR. 2. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PUNALUR. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KULATHURPUZHA. 5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH FOR R1 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.32099 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the President of Kollam District Lorry Owners Association. In this writ petition, their complaint is mainly regarding the overloaded trucks which come from Tamil Nadu State, through the Aryankavu check post. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that, overloaded lorries passing through Aryankavu check post bring materials into the State. It is stated that overloading amounts to violation of the provisions contained in Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act and are also punishable under Section 194 of the said Act. It is stated that, though almost all trucks which come from Tamil Nadu are overloaded, as a matter of course, the offence is compounded and accepting fine as provided in Rule 186 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules lorries are released. It is stated that in the process WP(c).No.32099/08 2 such trucks also pass through Valakkode bridge, where PWD themselves have installed a board announcing that vehicles carrying more than 10 tonnes of goods are prohibited. It is stated that, this is going on and the authorities are keeping a blind eye towards all these happenings. It is on this basis that the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent that goods vehicles passing through Ayrankavu check post overloaded beyond the permissible limit shall not be allowed into the State and that the same should be prevented. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that, if any vehicle is found to be overloaded and passing thorough the check post or the bridge referred to above, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors will inspect the vehicle and prepare a check report and will compound the offence. It is stated that, if any driver is unwilling to compound the offence, the vehicle will be ceased, kept under the control of the police and offence will be reported to the concerned court. In order to show effective that such WP(c).No.32099/08 3 lorries all checked, a chart has been provided in para 8 of the counter affidavit where the respondents are furnishing details of the compounding fee collected, which shows the increasing trend. By this the inference that is attempted that each and every lorries are checked and that the offences charged are compounded. 4. While the petitioner is alleging that overloaded trucks are permitted to ply into the State, the said averment is not seen to be disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. On the other hand the attempt is to explain the position and satisfy this court that they are preparing check reports and on that basis fine is levied. A reading of the counter affidavit gives the impression that levy of fine seems to be adopted as a matter of course and this is precisely what the petitioner is also objecting. 5. A reading of Section 86, particularly sub section 5 there of, would indicate that, if a vehicle is found to be plying in violation of the permit conditions, cancellation and WP(c).No.32099/08 4 suspension of permit is the action to be taken by the authorities. However, in terms of sub section (5) there of, the transport authority is entitled to, instead of suspending or cancelling the permit, recover from the holder of the permit, certain amount of money agreed upon, provided the transport authority is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it would not be necessary or excepts so to cancel or expedient the permit. Thus it is obvious that levy of fine is to be imposed, provided the conditions mentioned in Sub section (5) are satisfied. 6. As against this, the impression one gets from the counter affidavit is that the levy of fine is the rule. This is against the statutory scheme. That apart, compounding of offence also means that such trucks are permitted to ply through Valacode bridge where the PWD had prohibited the trucks with more than 10 tonnes of load. Therefore, by the compounding of offence yet another offence is permitted to be committed. This cannot be the situation. At the same time this WP(c).No.32099/08 5 court will not be justified in issuing positive directions as sought for by the petitioner which may affect even free flow of trucks and thereby affecting supply of essential commodities. 7. Therefore I direct the 2nd respondent to consider the aspect referred to above and issue appropriate directions and the remedy the situation to the extent that is possible. Petitioner shall produce a coy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent,along with an appropriate representation, in which case the same will be considered without any delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.32099/08 6