IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 8684 of 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO : 8685 of 2008 WRIT PETITION NO : 8684 of 2008 Between: Abdul Akram S/o.Abdul Aleem, R/o.Reddy Colony Mancherial,Adilabad Dist ..... PETITIONER AND The Regional Transport Officer Mancherial Adilabad Dist .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ,in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,order direction declaring the Notice No.7495/A2/2003/10(i) Dt.11-4-2008 in so far as it relates to vehicle bearing No.AP/IU-6117 proposing to take action for alleged offence of overloading under Sec.86 of the M.V 1998 as illegal,ultravires and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SIVA RAMA KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR TRANSPORT WRIT PETITION NO : 8685 of 2008 Between: Abdul Azam, S/o. Abdul Aleem, R/o. Reddy Colony, Mancherial, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Regional Trasport Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Notice No.7495/A2/2003/10(ii), Dt.11.4.2008, in so far as it relates to vehicle bearing No.AP/1U-5974, proposing to take action for alleged offence of overloading under Sec.86 of the M.V.Act 1988 as illegal, ultravires and void , and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SIVA RAMA KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Both the writ petitions are filed seeking declaration that the notices issued by the respondent dated 11.04.2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action shall not be taken under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for violation of conditions of the permit as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in M.MURALIDHAR REDDY v. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIOENR AND SECREETARY, RTA, KURNOOL[1]. In the said decision, having considered all the relevant statutory provisions in detail, particularly Section 114 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 286 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short “the Act”), held that the finding s to overload recorded by an unauthorized officer cannot be the basis for initiating action for compounding the offence under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute the factthat the ratio laid down in the said decision squarely applies to the case on hand. Following the above decision, the impugned notices, dated 11.04.2008 are set aside and the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:19.04.2008 Ccm Note: Furnish C.C. within three days. B/O Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} [1] 2003(5) ALD-1