THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18284 OF 2010 Dated: 27.08.2010 Between: G.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18284 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the transporters, who are engaged in the business of transporting iron ore from Mines in Bellary to Krishna Patnam. It is stated that the vehicles of the petitioners are plying on the national highway road No.63 starting from Bellary to Krishna Patnam and in between the vehicles have to pass through Donekal, Gadekal, Anchamahal, Guntakal, Tadipatri, Muddanur, Kadapa, Badwel and Krishna Patnam. This writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent-District Collector, Anantapur in issuing the impugned letter dated 06.07.2010 under which the Departments of Revenue, Police, Transport, Mines and Geology, Commercial Tax, Forest and other related Departments were requested to depute the checking staff round the clock at the temporary check point opened at Donekal which is at the Andhra Pradesh State border to check all the iron ore carrying goods from Karnataka State, which enter into Andhra Pradesh State and to verify the connected permits, bills so as to regulate these loads strictly as per the concerned department rules. It is contended by the petitioners that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) is a self contained code providing certain conditions which the transporter has to comply with and as per the provisions of the said Act it is only the State Government which has the power to impose any restrictions and as such the 1st respondent- District Collector has no power to impose the restrictions on the movement of the vehicles of the petitioners. It is also contended that any restrictions can be imposed by notification in the public gazette if the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience and as no such publication in the official gazette is made, the impugned proceedings are liable to be declared as illegal on that ground also. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the impugned letter dated 06.07.2010 was issued based on the decision of District Road Safety Committee in the meeting held on 05.07.2010. The said committee, which is constituted under Section 215(3) of the Act vide G.O.Ms.No.241, dated 24.11.2006, is headed by the District Collector as Chairman. It is stated that due to the plying of heavy goods vehicles with iron ore loads from Bellary to Krishnapatnam by using NH-63 in the old Guntakal town several accidents took place and in view of the same, the Municipal Council, Guntakal passed a resolution dated 13.08.2009 to take the necessary steps to prohibit entry of iron ore carrying goods vehicles from Karnataka State from 7 A.M. to 9 P.M. on NH-63 passing through old Guntakal town until bye-pass road is formed. The Municipal Commissioner, Guntakal by letter dated 13.08.2009 informed the same to the District Road Safety Committee, Anantapur requesting to take the necessary steps. The resolution was also communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur vide letter dated 31.08.2009. Based on the same, the Guntakal Police had stopped the plying of iron ore carrying goods vehicles during the day time and the said fact was informed to the District Collector, Anantapur vide letter of the Superintendent of Police dated 14.10.2009. Thus, all the goods vehicles including iron ore carrying goods vehicles are plying through the old Guntakal town on NH-63 between 8 P.M. to 7 A.M. only. Having taken into consideration all the aforesaid aspects, the District Safety Committee in its meeting held on 05.07.2010 decided as under: “(a). It was agreed to put the proposal before the appropriate authority. (b). It was resolved to open a Temporary Check Point at Donekal Mandal of A.P. State Border, prohibiting the Iron Ore carrying Goods vehicles from Karnataka State to enter into A.P state to be regulated by Revenue, Police, Transport, Mines and Geology, Commercial Tax, Forest and other related Departments and advising these Goods Vehicles to go to Krishnapatnam Port (via) Bangalore. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Guntakal shall enforce and monitor the check point daily in Co-ordination with other Department officials, by deploying officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police. (c). It was also resolved to appoint Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Anantapur as a Special Officer, to Co-ordinate with State Government and Central Government for sanctioning and laying of Bye-pass road on NH-63 for Guntakal Town, on Top priority. (d) It was also resolved to prohibit all goods vehicles from 6 am to 10 pm to enter into Guntakal town from Railway level crossing to Guntakal Rural Police Station on NH-63 for stretch of 2 km in Old Guntal town and to allow all goods vehicles with permitted GVW from 10 pm to 6 pm, till a notification is issued in the Gazette as an immediate measures to regulate the goods vehicle traffic. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Guntakal shall enforce by deploying required staff from Police Department.” Accordingly, the District Collector, who is the Chairman of the Committee addressed the impugned letter dated 06.07.2010 requesting all the departments to implement the decision of the committee. It is also stated that the resolutions of the Committee dated 6.7.2010 were placed before the Regional Transport Authority at Anantapur on 06.07.2010 and having considered the same, the Regional Transport Authority resolved as follows: “It was resolved ‘to prohibit all Heavy Goods vehicles from 6 AM to 10 PM to enter into Guntakal town from Railway level Crossing to Guntakal Rural Police Station on NH 63 for a stretch of 2 Km in old Guntakal town, and to allow all Heavy Goods vehicles with permitted GVW from 10 PM to 6 AM as per District Road Safety Committee resolution No.4, dated 05.07.2010, U/s 115 of Motor Vehicles Act 1989 read with Rule 397 (ii) of Andhra pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules 1989”. The said resolution dated 06.07.2010 passed by the Regional Transport Authority was submitted on 12.07.2010 for concurrence by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as per Rule 397 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘the Rules’) and the matter is under process. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents shows that the impugned instructions issued by the District Collector are the outcome of the decisions taken by the District Road Safety Committee. It is to be noticed that under the impugned letter the District Collector, who is the Chairman of the District Road Safety Committee, had only directed opening a temporary check point at Donekal to be regulated by Revenue, Police, Transport, Mines and Geology, Commercial Tax, Forest and other related Departments. Apparently it is only to ensure the loads being carried by the vehicles are strictly in accordance with the Rules of the concerned Departments. The mere opening of such a temporary check point at a particular place so as to regulate the iron ore carrying goods vehicles from Karnataka State, which enter into Andhra Pradesh State strictly as per the rules of the concerned department in my opinion does not in any way prohibit or restrict the movement of any class of motor vehicles and therefore I am unable to hold that the directions in the impugned letter amount to restriction on the movement of the vehicles of the petitioners. However the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the guise of the instructions in the impugned letter, the vehicles of the petitioners are completely prohibited to enter the A.P. State and the said action of the respondents being contrary to Section 115 of the Act as well as Rule 397 of the Rules is liable to be declared illegal. Section 115 of the Act reads as follows:- “The State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the State Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge, may by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class or description of motor vehicles or the use of trailers either generally in a specified area or on a specified road and when any such prohibition or restriction is imposed, shall cause appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under Section 116 at suitable places. Provided that where any prohibition or restriction under this section is to remain in force for not more than one month, notification thereof in the Official Gazette shall not be necessary, but such local publicity as the circumstances may permit, shall be given of such prohibition or restriction.” It is also relevant to notice Rule 397 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which runs as under: “Powers of Transport Authority to restrict speeds, weights etc:- The State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority shall have the power:- (i) to impose speed limits; (ii) to impose limits on the laden weight or axle weight or dimensions of motor vehicles and to prohibit or restrict the use of motor vehicles generally or of a particular class of trailers in a specified area or in respect of any road; and (iii) to designate any road as main road: Provided that power conferred on the Regional Transport Authority by this rule shall be subject to the control of the State Transport Authority: Provided further that no limits or restrictions under Clause (ii) shall be imposed by the Regional Transport Authority without the specific concurrence of the State Transport Authority: Provided also that the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority may by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, exempt any motor vehicle or class of motor vehicles from the provisions of this rule to such extent as may be specified therein.” Under Section 115 of the Act the State Government or any authority authorized by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class of motor vehicles either generally in a specified area or on a specified road and when any such prohibition or restriction is imposed, appropriate traffic signs shall be erected at suitable places. However, before issuing such notification the State Government or the authorized authority has to be satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience or because of the nature of any road or bridge. As could be seen from the proviso, such notification in the official gazette is not necessary, where any prohibition or restriction under Section 115 is to remain in force for not more than one month. So far as Rule 397 of the Rules is concerned, it empowers the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority to impose limits, prohibit or restrict the use of motor vehicles generally or of a particular class of trailers in a specified area. However, the proviso made it clear that the power conferred on the Regional Transport Authority shall be subject to the control of the State Transport Authority. The second proviso further made it clear that no limits or restrictions under clause (ii) for use of the motor vehicles in a specified area shall be imposed by the Regional Transport Authority without the specific concurrence of the State Transport Authority. As could be seen from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, pursuant to the resolution passed by the Road Safety Committee, the Regional Transport Authority passed a resolution on 06.07.2010 and the said resolution was submitted on 12.07.2010 for concurrence of the State Transport Authority. Admittedly such concurrence has not yet been received from the State Transport Authority. In the circumstances, even the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority to the extent of limiting prohibiting or restricting the use of motor vehicles cannot be implemented. As noticed above, though under Section 115 of the Act and Ru 397 of the Rules in the interest of the public safety or convenience th State Government or any authority authorized are competent to take th appropriate decision prohibiting the use of motor vehicles in a specifie area, such prohibition can be implemented only after the same has bee notified in the official gazette if it is made by the State Government und Section 115 of the Act. If the power conferred under Rule 397 of Rules invoked by the Regional Transport Authority the same require concurrence of the State Transport Authority. In the absence of th publication in the official gazette or in the absence of the concurrence b the State Transport Authority the prohibition of any class of mot vehicles in a specified area cannot be implemented. In the instant case, the counter-affidavit shows that no suc notification has been published so far with regard to the iron ore carryin goods vehicles. Similarly the concurrence of the State Transpo Authority is yet to be received. Therefore, it is made clear that th vehicles of the petitioners transporting iron ore shall not be prohibited enter the A.P. State nor there can be any restrictions on plying of the sa vehicles except in compliance with the provisions of the law notice above. In the result, the impugned letter of the District Collector, date 6.7.2010 warrants no interference and the Writ Petition is according disposed of with the above directions. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date:27.08.2010 Ivd