1 WP5527.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5527 OF 2015
PETITIONER : Ravindra S/o Sadashivrao Lonare,
aged about 45 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Walgaon, Tq. And Dist. Amravati.
- VERSUS -
RESPONDENTS : 1] The State of Maharashtra,
ig through Secretary, Revenue Ministry,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] The Collector,
Amravati District, Amravati.
3] The Sub Divisional Officer,
Amravati Sub Division, Amravati.
Taluka & District Amravati.
4] The Tahsildar,
Amravati Taluka, Amravati,
Taluka & District Amravati.
5] Police Commissioner,
Police Commissionrate, Amravati.
Taluka & District Amravati.
6] The Police Inspector,
City Traffic Police Branch,
Amravati City, Amravati,
Taluka & District Amravati.
7] The Regional Transport Officer,
The Regional Transport Office,
Amravati, Taluka & District Amravati.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. G. R. Sadar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. H. N. Prabhu, A.G.P. for the respondent nos.1 to 7.
------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:48:01 :::
2 WP5527.15.odt
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 04, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission itself.
2] Brief facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as under :
The petitioner is the owner of truck vehicle in question and is engaged in transport business. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is having valid permit for excavation of sand and transporting the same. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 28.08.2015, truck vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No. MH-27/X-6111 was detained. An order was passed by the respondent no.4 - Tahsildar, Amravati on 01.09.2015 holding that the petitioner was transporting the sand from his truck vehicle and the same was overloaded i.e. the quantity of sand loaded in the truck was more than the permissible quantity. By the said order, the petitioner was directed to pay the penalty to the tune of Rs.25,296/-. The petitioner immediately approached the respondent no.3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Amravati by ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:48:01 ::: 3 WP5527.15.odt submitting his representation/appeal against the order of respondent no.4-Tahsildar. It was submitted in the appeal that the quantity of sand in the said truck vehicle was as per the permit and when the vehicle was apprehended, the driver of the truck vehicle requested the authorities to weigh the sand load, but the authorities paid no heed to the request of the driver. The authorities forcefully caused the truck vehicle detained in the City Traffic Office. It was stated in the appeal that the authorities were indulging in the act of subjecting the petitioner to extraneous consideration. It was submitted in the appeal that as the petitioner denied to show any favour to the demand of the authorities, an order was passed against the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing. The first Appellate Authority i.e. respondent no.3-SDO dismissed the appeal thereby maintaining the order of the respondent no.4-Tahsildar. The petitioner being aggrieved by these orders, approached this Court by way of this writ petition.
3] This Court, by order dated 05.10.2015, while issuing notices to the respondents and granting stay to the coercive recovery of the penalty imposed on the petitioner, directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount in this Court within the stipulated period of four weeks. This Court further directed the respondent no.5 i.e. Police ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:48:01 ::: 4 WP5527.15.odt Commissioner, Amravati to release the truck vehicle i.e. truck No. MH-
27/X-6111, subject to the petitioner depositing the amount in this Court and filing appropriate affidavit before the respondent no.5. This Court also directed the respondent no.5 to release the truck vehicle after weighment of the truck and sand therein, upon supratnama.
4] The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-authorities submits that the respondent-authorities have filed reply opposing the petition as well as in compliance of the order of this Court, dated 05.10.2015.
5] The documents placed on record show that the petitioner had deposited the amount in compliance of the order of this Court and submitted an affidavit before the respondent no.5. In view of the direction of this Court, an exercise of weighment of the truck vehicle and the sand was undertaken. The supratnama placed on record dated 16.10.2015, signed by the petitioner and the concerned Police Inspector, shows that on weighment of the truck at one Shree Shyam Weigh Bridge, the load was found to the extent of 12250 Kgs.
6] On the backdrop of these facts, it would be necessary to consider the grievance of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:48:01 ::: 5 WP5527.15.odt before this Court was the petitioner was operating his business of transportation of sand under the valid permit issued by the office of District Collector. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the documents placed on record namely, the document named and styled as Transport Permit, issued by the office of District Collector, having Serial No. 847 and invoice No. 293252 at Annexure P-3. Perusal of said document shows that the vehicle number of the petitioner is referred to as MH-27/X-6111. The quantity permitted under the said permit for transportation of sand is 2 brass. Apart from this manual receipt, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the another document at Annexure P-4 i.e. a computer generated receipt referring to vehicle No. as MH-27/X-6111, invoice number as 293252 and permitted quantity as 2 brass. The said document further show the date of invoice as 28.08.2015 and the time as 10:28:28 am. Now, on the backdrop of these documents, it would be interesting to refer to the order passed by the respondent no.4 -
Tahsildar, which shows that the patrolling squad of City Traffic branch, Amravati had forwarded a communication, dated 28.08.2015 to the Tahsildar, Amravati. It is further stated in the order that as per the said communication, during patrolling on 26.08.2015, truck No. MH-27/ X-6111 was found being driven in negligent and rash manner by the ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:48:01 ::: 6 WP5527.15.odt driver of the truck. While the vehicle was stopped and documents were sought from the driver so also an enquiry was made about the material loaded in the truck vehicle. The vehicle driver was unable to tender any document to the authorities and as it was apprehended that the vehicle was transporting the sand more than the permissible load, the vehicle was weighed and it was found that the vehicle was carrying the load of sand to the extent of 1.24 brass. Accordingly, assuming the market value of the sand load i.e. Rs.4,960/-, penalty of five times of market value of the sand, which came to Rs.25,296/-, was sought to be recovered from the petitioner.
7] The petitioner though approached the respondent no.3 -
Sub Divisional Officer by filing representation/ appeal, the respondent no.3 maintained the order of the respondent no.4 - Tahsildar. It is interesting to note that the petitioner had immediately approached the transport authorities also by submitting an application on 03.09.2015.
It was submitted in the application that the vehicle driver was possessing Royalty Pass and though he was ready to tender the same for inspection and requested the authorities to have weighment of the vehicle, the authorities paid no heed to the request of the driver.
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:48:01 ::: 7 WP5527.15.odt
8] As stated above, this Court by order dated 05.10.2015 had
directed the respondent no.5 authority to release the truck vehicle after weighment of the said truck and sand therein upon supratnama.
Perusal of the supratnama shows that on weighment of the vehicle and the sand load, it was found that the quantity of sand load in the truck was to the extent of 22,250 Kgs. The material placed on record clearly shows that the petitioner was having valid permit to transport the sand in his vehicle Truck No. MH-27/X-6111 to the extent of 2 brass. The documents placed on record along with the rejoinder-cum-additional affidavit filed by the petitioner i.e. receipt issued by one Shree Shyam Weigh Bridge shows that gross weight of the truck was 12,250 KGS.
The supratnama signed by the petitioner as well as by the Police Inspector of Gadge Nagar Division refers to said weighment. Thus, the documents placed on record clearly show that the quantity of the sand load in the truck was under the permitted quantity. Even the order passed by the respondent no.4 - Tahsildar shows that when the sand load was weighed , the quantity found was 1.24 brass. The quantity of sand permitted to be transported by the petitioner was 2 brass. The material placed on record also show that the petitioner while approaching the transport authorities as well as the Appellate Authority had submitted that he was having valid permit and the driver was ready ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:48:01 ::: 8 WP5527.15.odt to tender the valid permit. The representation/appeal refers to the invoice number as 293252 and permit as well as serial number of the receipt as 847. Not only this, but the petitioner had raised a specific ground before this Court that some of the officers of police department were playing mischief by raising illegal demands to the petitioner and show cause notices were issued to those erring officers. Perusal of the copy of show cause notice placed on record issued to the earing officers show that in the preliminary enquiry, some substance was found in the complaint of the petitioner against those earning officers.
9] The material placed on record clearly show that the petitioner was permitted to carry and transport the sand load to the extent of 2 brass. The petitioner was having valid permit issued in his favour. The authorities namely respondent no.4 - Tahsildar as well as respondent no.3 - Sub Divisional Officer mechanically passed the orders without verifying the documents, such as permit granted to the petitioner so also without verifying the quantity of sand permitted to be transported by the petitioner and quantity of sand load in the truck vehicle in question. It was expected from the authorities to have their subjective satisfaction while passing the order in the nature of penal order against the petitioner. The authorities were not expected to pass ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:48:01 ::: 9 WP5527.15.odt the order only on assumption, presumption and a doubt. Considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the respondent nos.3 and 4, impugned in this petition, are clearly unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside.
10] In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed.
i] The orders passed by the authorities i.e. respondent no.4
- Tahsildar, Amravati, dated 01.09.2015 and respondent no.3 -Sub Divisional Officer, dated 19.09.2015 are quashed and set aside.
ii] The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.25,296/- deposited by him in this Court in compliance of the order, dated 05.10.2015.
iii] Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has prayed for directions under prayer clause -d(i) to return the Driving License of driver Shri D. S. Sonone, this prayer cannot be granted as the said driving license stands in the name of Shri D.S. Sonone and not in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner is before this Court only challenging the orders passed by the respondent nos.4- Tahsildar and respondent no.3 - Sub Divisional Officer. Needless to state that the person, in whose name the driving license stands, can certainly approach the Transport Authorities for ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:48:01 ::: 10 WP5527.15.odt release of his driving license by availing the remedy available under the law.
Iv] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Diwale
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:48:01 :::
11 WP5527.15.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded By : Parag P. Diwale, P.A. Uploaded on: 05.10.2016 ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2016 00:48:01 :::