heavy goods vehicles are loaded in excess of their capacity leading to damage to the roads. In certain cases, the authorities are passing orders suspending the permits depending upon the extent of overload. It is not known as to whether any order of suspension of permit has been passed against the petitioner.= Petitioner is the owner of a heavy goods vehicle bearing No. AP 28 TC 6669. On 07.02.2013, it was seized by the 3rd respondent on the ground that it was overloaded by about 7,270 kgs. The petitioner challenges the check report, under which the vehicle was seized.- Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall release the vehicle in question by collecting the penalty of Rs.1,000/- per tonne for overload up to an extent of 15% of the maximum carrying capacity of the vehicle as entered in Registration Certificate and at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per tonne for any overload in excess of 15% of such capacity. Further, the release shall be only after the overload in the vehicle is off-loaded on the spot. The respondents shall return the original documents pertaining to the vehicle, if taken from the petitioner, duly retaining copies thereof. There shall be no order as to costs.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.3910 of 2013

 ORDER:                                                                         

          Petitioner is the owner of a heavy goods vehicle bearing No. AP 28 TC 6669.  On 07.02.2013, it was seized by the 3rd respondent on the ground that it was overloaded by about       7,270 kgs. The petitioner challenges the check report, under which the vehicle was seized.

          Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport.

          In the recent past, the heavy goods vehicles are loaded in excess of their capacity leading to damage to the roads.  In certain cases, the authorities are passing orders suspending the permits depending upon the extent of overload.  It is not known as to whether any order of suspension of permit has been passed against the petitioner.

          The Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder provide for levy of penalty to the extent of Rs.1000/- per tonne of overload. The continued seizure of the vehicle that too in a loaded condition would cause heavy damage to the vehicle. At the same time, the greed of the owners of the vehicles cannot be permitted to damage and spoil the roads on account of undue overload.  While an inadvertent overload to an extent of 15% can be condoned by collecting the penalty at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per tonne, any overload exceeding that must be penalised through levy of double the amount.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall release the vehicle in question by collecting the penalty of Rs.1,000/- per tonne for overload up to an extent of 15% of the maximum carrying capacity of the vehicle as entered in Registration Certificate and at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per tonne for any overload in excess of 15% of such capacity. Further, the release shall be only after the overload in the vehicle is off-loaded on the spot. The respondents shall return the original documents pertaining to the vehicle, if taken from the petitioner, duly retaining copies thereof.  There shall be no order as to costs.

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. 

________________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.   
        

Dt:08.02.2013

Note: Issue wire at party’s costs.
(B/o)
kdl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 











Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.