Pareshkumar Devilal Sankeshara vs State of Gujarat and Others

D.H. Waghela, J.—Rule, of which notice was waived by learned Counsel and learned Government Pleader for Respondents. The Petitioners are aggrieved by orders dated 09.3.2011, whereby registration of vehicles of the Petitioners has been suspended for the period from 01.03.2011 to 29.05.2011. Admittedly, show cause notices dated 09.03.2011 were issued under the provisions of Section 53(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, �the Act�) with the allegation that the vehicles were used in a public place causing danger to the public. The impugned orders appear to have been made on the same day, on the same basis, exercising the power u/s 53(1).

Admittedly, proceedings against the Petitioners were initiated on the basis of complaint dated 03.03.2011 made by a proposed committee, styled as �Sadak-Sadak Sapati Ane Overloading Transporting Ane Mineral Royalty Chhori Atkav Samiti� and the complaint was, inter alia, about overloading of the vehicles by the Petitioners. The Petitioners made applications before the A.R.T.O., Himmatnagar on 09.03.011 to state that the vehicles in question have been forcibly taken away on 01.03.2011 by the association of Respondent No. 5 and lodged at Dhansura Police Station through Mamlatdar. Even as the factum of overloading was admitted by the Petitioners, It was fairly conceded by learned Government Pleader that the action of suspension of registration was sought to be justified by the authorities on the basis that the default was covered by Section 53(1)(a) of the Act, although the impugned orders were made in exercise of the powers related to the default described in Section 53(1)(b) of the Act. It was pointed out by learned Counsel Mr. R.B. Dave, appearing for the Petitioners, that, according to the express provisions of Section 53(1), the authority is authorized to suspend the certificate of registration of vehicle, in the case falling under Clause (1)(a) of Section 53, 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 is covered by Section 53(1)(b). The overloading of goods was not covered by Section 53(1)(b) and the registration could not be suspended after the defect was rectified. He submitted that, by now, the overloading was removed and the impugned orders could not be Defended as illegality was writ large on the impugned orders.

In view of the apparent illegality in the exercise of power and the discrepancy in the show cause notices and the impugned orders, incidentally both of which are dated 09.03.2011, the impugned orders have to be set aside, with the direction that the vehicles in question of the Petitioners shall be released forthwith, if they are still under illegal detention. The Respondent No. 1 and 3 and other authorities empowered under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder shall be at liberty to take other legal steps against the Petitioners as may be required in the facts of the case, including prosecution u/s 194 or other relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder.

A disturbing feature emerging from the record is that an admittedly unauthorized group of persons have, in the name of a proposed committee, exercised the powers of stopping vehicles on the highway, carrying out checking of the vehicles and the papers related to the goods carried in the vehicles and taken the vehicles to the office of Mamlatdar after taking over control of the vehicles. Learned Counsel Mr. Vijay Nangesh, appearing for Respondent No. 5, who admittedly carried out the operation and filed written complaints accepting the aforesaid facts, has gone on to argue that overloading of the vehicles and non-payment of royalties have become serious problems and Respondent No. 5 was justified, as a vigilant citizen, in bringing the facts of overloading and non-payment of royalties to the notice of the Mamlatdar concerned by way of producing the vehicles and filing written complaints. Learned Government Pleader, who was present in the Court, submitted in this regard that Respondent No. 5 was not and could not have been permitted to exercise any of the powers or functions of the officers of the government and appropriate steps shall be taken against Respondent No. 5 in view of the serious challenge posed by him to the rule of law. He further stated that the officers concerned of various departments, including Road Transport authorities, shall be informed by written circulars to prevent such activities on public roads by any private citizen and not to encourage them by entertaining complaints made by them in what is claimed by them to be �public interest�. Learned Counsel Mr. Nangesh could not name any person other than the two persons named in the complaint as President and Secretary, to be members of the proposed committee, which is admittedly not incorporated or registered under any law. Therefore, the President and the Secretary of the committee appeared to be working in their personal capacities and Respondent No. 5 has admittedly signed the complaint dated 03.03.2011 and has sought to justify his high-handed and unauthorized actions before this Court. It clearly appears that the Petitioners have been put to unnecessary and culpable harassment and litigation at the instance of Respondent No. 5.

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed, with the directions that impugned orders dated 09.03.2011 shall stand quashed, the vehicle Nos. GJ-9-Z-5541 and GJ-9-Z-5558 of the respective Petitioner shall be returned to them, if they are still under illegal detention, and Respondent No. 5 shall pay to each of the Petitioners Rs. 5,000/-, by way of cost. Rule in each petition is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.