WPPIL/24/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 528 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL
          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                             AND
            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                       27TH FEBRUARY, 2023

          WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 24 OF 2023

Between:

Gagan Parashar.                                               ...Petitioner

and

State of Uttarakhand and others.                          ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner.          :   Mr. Dushyant   Mainali,   the   learned
                                         counsel.

Counsel for the respondent nos. 1,   :   Mr. S.N. Babulkar, the learned
2, 3, 4, 6 & 7.                          Advocate General assisted by Mr. S.S.
                                         Chauhan, the learned Deputy Advocate
                                         General for the State of Uttarakhand.

Counsel for respondent no. 5         :   Mr. Virendra Kaparwan, the learned
                                         counsel.


ORDER : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)

              Issue notice.


2.            Learned counsels for the respondents appear

and accept notice.


3.            The petitioner has preferred the present Writ

Petition, in Public Interest, to assail the communication

dated 30.01.2023, issued by the Additional Secretary,

Government of Uttarakhand, to the Managing Director,

Forest Development Corporation Ltd., permitting miners

to overload their trucks beyond the permissible limits,
 on the ground that the financial year is about to come to

a close, and the targets have not been met.          The

communication dated 30.01.2023 reads as follows :-




4.        We are absolutely appalled of the manner, in

which the respondents have issued the communication

dated 30.01.2023.    The same is in the teeth of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Paramjit Bhasin

and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2005) 12 SCC

642, which was circulated for compliance by the

                            2
 Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport &

Highways, to all the Principal Secretaries/ Secretaries

(Transport) of all the States, including the State of

Uttarakhand, on 06.07.2010. The communication dated

30.01.2023 is also contrary to the provisions of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.


5.        Pertinently,   the       impugned   communication

does not fix any upper-limit on the excess weight, which

may be carried by the vehicles, and the vehicle owner is

merely charged royalty payable for the minor minerals in

the vehicles and other fees, according to the Rules, and

after receipt of the amount it does not restrict the

operations of the vehicle for the next day.


6.        Learned counsel for the respondents has

tendered in Court the notification issued by the Central

Government on 06.08.2018 bearing S.O. 3881(E) and

S.O. No. 3467(E), issued under the provisions of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Even this notification does not

state that overloading to any limit would be permissible

in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988, and the judgment of the Supreme Court

taken note of hereinabove.



                               3
 7.          We, accordingly, stay the operation of the

impugned communication dated 30.01.2023, and direct

the     respondent/ authorities     to strictly enforce   the

aforesaid legal provisions, as well as the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Paramjit Bhasin and Ors. (supra).

The Regional Transport Officer is directed to strictly

enforce our orders.       Non-compliance of the same shall

be viewed strictly by this Court.


8.          List on 19.07.2023.


                                      ________________
                                       VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.


                                   ___________________
                                   ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 27th February, 2023 Rahul