The Rajasthan High Court held that the suspension of vehicle registrations on mere allegations of overloading, without actual physical verification and weighing, cannot be sustained in law. The Court was deciding a batch of writ petitions challenging the orders of District Transport Officers (DTOs) suspending vehicle registrations based on reports from the Mining Department. Observing that the Motor Vehicles Act mandates physical verification by authorised officers before such punitive action, the Court emphasised that registration suspension must be grounded in concrete evidence, not assumptions.
Several transport operators approached the High Court challenging orders suspending the registration of their vehicles. The DTOs had acted on reports from the Mining Department alleging that the vehicles were being operated in an overloaded condition and, in some cases, with structural modifications beyond permissible limits.
The petitioners contended that the suspensions were made without any actual weighing of the vehicles or prior notice, resulting in arbitrary action in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that under Section 53 and Section 114 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, punitive measures for overloading can only follow when the actual weight of a vehicle is measured and confirmed by an authorised officer. They claimed no such exercise was undertaken before suspending the registrations.
It was further submitted that the authorities acted solely on reports from the Mining Department without independent verification by the Transport Department. The petitioners relied on the Orissa High Court judgment in IRC Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd. v. District Magistrate and Collector, which quashed similar suspension orders passed without weighing the vehicles.
On the other hand, counsel for the State argued that due process was followed. Notices were allegedly sent to the petitioners via registered post before passing the orders. The State maintained that the petitioners had altered the structural design of their vehicles and were operating them in blatant violation of Section 52 and Section 113 of the Act and Rule 115 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
It was contended that the suspensions were justified to curb unlawful overloading, which poses safety and infrastructural hazards.
The Bench noted that Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act permits suspension of registration only if a contravention is duly established. The Court found that in the present cases, the DTOs had not conducted any actual weighing of the vehicles and had instead acted solely on the basis of Mining Department reports.
Quoting with approval the reasoning of the Orissa High Court, the Bench reiterated that, "Section 114 of the Act empowers only the authorised officer of the Motor Vehicles Department to weigh a goods vehicle if there is reason to believe it is overloaded. Relying solely on reports from other departments, without such weighing, is a violation of the mandatory statutory requirement".
The Court held that without physical verification, including weighing and measurement, no registration could be suspended for overloading. It further observed that, if structural alterations are suspected, the authorities must first inspect the vehicle before taking action.
Setting aside the impugned suspension orders, the Court directed the petitioners to produce their vehicles before the respective DTOs within one month for inspection. The DTOs must physically verify and weigh the vehicles and take action only if overloading or illegal modifications are established.
The Court clarified that the Transport Department must not suspend registrations merely on allegations or on the basis of data from the Mining Department. It also allowed interim movement of vehicles strictly for the purpose of presenting them for inspection, prohibiting their use for any commercial purpose during this period.
With these directions, the batch of writ petitions was disposed of.
Picture Source :
