SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRi S.R. NAYAK, CJ WRITPETmON N0.538 7 VI 2 4. Rakesh Agrawal, aged about 46 years, son of Shri Balram Agrawai, resident of Agrasen Marg, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Gopal Agrawl, aged about 49 years, son of Late Banwarilal Agrawal, resldent of Agrasen Marg, Korba, Distt. Korba(C.G.) Vikas Agrawal, aged about 27 years, son of Shri Jaiprakash Agrawal, resldent of Agrasen Marg, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Sanjay Agrawat, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Jaiprakash Agrawai, resident of Agrasen Marg, Korba, DistE. Korba (C.G.) The South Eastern Coalfields Limited, through - Its Regional Saies Manager, Korba Area, Tahsil and Distt. Korba (C.G.) Regional Sa!es Manager, SECL Gevra Area, Tahsil and Distt. Korba (C.G.) Regional Sales IVIanager, SECL Dipika Area, Tahsi! and Distt. Korba (C.G.) State of ChhatSisgarh, through Its Secretary, Deptt. of Transport, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantraiay, Raipur (C.G.) !ts Engineering and Locomotives Company (Telco) through - Regional Saies Officer, Telco Raipur, Tahsil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Present: Shri N.L. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Praveen Das, iearned counsel for the respondents/ S.E.C.L. Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned Dy. A.G. with Shri Yashwant Singh, iearned Govt. Advocate for the State. ^- ^G^ iPassed on 24$h July, 200S) Four operators of goods transport motor vehicies have filed this writ petition complaining that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited ( for short "the SECL") authorities do not permit their vehictes to carry maximum weight as per the gross vehicle weight mentioned by the registering authority in the concerned registration certificate. In the premise of that complaint, a direction is sought to the authorities of the S.E.C.L. to permit the petitioners' vehicles to carry maximum weight as per the gross vehicle weight mentioned in the registration certificates. The above complaint ofthe petitioner is related to 16 vehictes details of which have been given in a table marked as Annexure P/1 produced at page 9 of the materiai papers. Although, the relief is sought in this writ petition wth regard to atl the 16 motor vehicies mentioned in the tabte (Annexure P/1), Shri N.L. Soni, learned counse! appearing for the petitioner having regard to the materials placed by the respondents- State authorities and position in law would submit that the grievance of the pefitioners with regard to the motor vehicies mentioned in Si. No. to 12 (both inc'usive) is not justified and he would not press writ petition with regard to those five vehicles. (2) I heard learned counsel for the parties. !t was contended by Shri Soni that the registering authority having applied its mind to the categories of motor vehicles involved in the case and also taking into account the maximum gross vehicte weight specified by the Central Government in its Notiflcation issued under Section 58 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 has correctly mentioned maximum gross vehicle weight mentioned in the certificate of the registration and, therefore, the C^Q S.E.C.L. authorities are legally bound to permit the petitioners' vehicle to carry maximum weight as specified in the certificates of registration, and that the refusal of the S.E.C.L. authorities to do so should be condemned as arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned Deputy Advocate Genera!, Shri N.K. Agrawal, appearing for the State authorities, per contra, drawing the attention of the Court the return and additiona! return filed by them and the documents Annexed thereto would submit that out of 16 motor vehicles involved in the case, 5 vehicles wouid fall under category I! (i) of Semi Articulated Vehicies, whereas the remaining 11 vehicles would fall under the category il(iii) of Semi Articulated Vehicles and in that view of the matter the permissible maximum gross vehicle weight In the case of the vehic!es covered by category ll(i) is only 28.4 tonnes and in the ease ofthe vehictes covered by the category I! (iii) is only 40.2 tonnes. He would point out that the registering authority quite curiously mentioned the maximum gross yehicle weight at 30.75 tonnes and 44 tonnes respectlveiy. In repiy, Shri Soni wouid contend that the category II deals with Semi Articulated vehicies like tractors and not the truck trailer combinations. According to hlm, the 11 vehicies with regard to which he does not agree with the stand of the Govemment authorities would fall under the category (iii). Countering the above assertion of Shri Soni, learned Deputy Advocate General wouid draw the attention of the Court So severat photographs of trucks in question to show that the trucks-trailers have 18 tyres together and therefore, they undeniably fall under the category (ii) which deals with semi Articulated Vehicles. (3) The S.E.C.L, itself is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of india. Not only the State, but, every citizen and ^^lj ~^1 - person is expected to compty with and or aid enforcement of public law obiigations. It is not that the regardtess of the fact whether the maximum gross vehicie weight shown by the registering authority in the certificate of the registration reflects correctly maximum gross vehicle weight specified by the Centra! Government in the Notification issued by it under Section 58 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the S.E.C.L. blindly and in violation of the statutory mandate should permit the vehides of the petitioners to carry the weight in excess of the maximum gross vehicle weight specified by the Centra! Government. As already pointed out, the State has filed its return as for back as on 27-03-2( after serving a copy of the same on the petitioner. Till date, no rejoinder is filed by the petitioners to contest the correctness of any of the averments made in the return. !n paras 2 and 5 ofthe return, necessary details are set out to support the stand taken by the State Government. i have perused the photographs annexed to the return marked as Annexure R/4 II series Semi Articulated Vehicles, even to naked eye, would show that they have 18 tyres. It is not denied before me by Shri Soni thaf if 16 vehicles (5 and 11 vehicles) iffail underthe category of (i) and II (iii), the permissible maximum gross vehicle weight could not more than 26.4 tonnes and 40.2 tonnes, respectively. If this is the admitted position, the material placed before the Court would clinchingiy show that the registering authorities in violation of the mandatory specification made by the Central Government in its Notification issued under Section 58 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has mentioned excess weights. i have had occasion to deai with the public mischief andi' injury caused by allowing excess weight in the vehicles in my order dated 06-07-2006 passed in W.P. No. 944 of 2006 and the bateh. The ^^^ c>- same observations would justify in thjs case also. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justlce j^^M-