Thursday, 23, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shri Ravindra S/O Sadashivrao ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5840 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 5840 Bom
Judgement Date : 4 October, 2016

Bombay High Court
Shri Ravindra S/O Sadashivrao ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 4 October, 2016
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
                                             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

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

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

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

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.

                                         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

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

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

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


                              
                             
      
   







                                        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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter