Dineshkumar Vasantilal Karnavat vs State of Gujarat and Others

D.H.Waghela, J.—Rule. Learned AGP waives service. The Petitioner has invoked Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution to challenge orders dated 9.3.2011 and 11.4.2011 so as to set aside the action of seizure and the orders suspending and confirming the suspension of registration of the vehicle of the Petitioner from 4.3.2011 to 2.6.2011.

The short and indisputable facts of the case are that the goods vehicle of the Petitioner registered and plying with number GJ-6 VV-8455, with national permit was checked on 4.3.2011 and found to be overloaded. Therefore, show cause notice u/s 53(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") was issued to the Petitioner, with the allegation that the vehicle was used in a public place posing danger to the public. Thereafter, the first impugned order dated 9.3.2011 was made by the Assistant R.T.O., Dahod, again expressly under the provisions of Section 53(1)(b), suspending the registration of the said vehicle for the aforesaid period. The Petitioner preferred an appeal from that order and the second impugned order dated 11.4.2011 rejecting the appeal was made with the observation that the excessive overload carried on the vehicle put the case in the scope of Section 53(1)(a) of the Act. Thus, in short the action of suspension of registration for four months was sought to be justified by the authorities on the basis that the default was covered by Section 53(1)(a), although the impugned orders were made in exercise of powers related to the default described in Section 53(1)(b) of the Act. Even while defending the impugned orders, learned AGP fairly, in no uncertain terms, conceded that the default of the Petitioner was found to be covered by the provisions of Section 53(1)(a) and the impugned orders were justified on that basis.

It was pointed out by learned Counsel, Mr. R.B. Dave, appearing for the Petitioner that, according to the express and clear provisions of Section 53(1), the authority is authorized to suspend the certificate of registration of the vehicle, in the case falling under Clause (1)(a), until the defects are rectified to the satisfaction of the authority; and the power to suspend registration for a period not exceeding four months could be exercised only in case the default was covered by Section 53(1)(b). He submitted that the overloaded goods were immediately off-loaded after checking and thus the defect was rectified, where after the registration could not be suspended for any further period. Although it is not on record and not substantiated that the overloaded goods were immediately off-loaded, it cannot save the impugned orders from the apparent illegality in exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 53 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside with the direction that, if at all the defects are not rectified by the Petitioner till now, the period of suspending the certificate of registration of the vehicle in question shall last only upto the time such defects are rectified, i.e. the overloaded goods are off-loaded. The suspension of certificate of registration of the aforesaid vehicle shall not continue thereafter. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms with liberty to the Respondent to take appropriate legal action u/s 194 or other applicable provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

It was noticed during the course of hearing that the national permit issued for the vehicle in question was subject to several conditions and a copy thereof annexed to the petition was not correct copy, although it was certified as true copy with signature of learned advocate for the Petitioner. It was also noticed that even in the original permit column No. 13 was left blank, which could confuse or mislead the parties concerned and the Court. Learned Counsel, Mr. Dave and learned AGP are requested to look into the matter for preventing recurrence of such defects.