PARAMJIT BHASIN AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 118 · Decided: 09-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PARAMJIT BHASIN AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 9, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND C.K.THAKKER, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 113, 114, 194 & 200-Carriage of 
load beyond permissible limit-If permissible ajter compounding of the 
c offence-Held, No-After compounding. the excess load, same cannot be 
permitted to be carried In the concerned vehlcle-:-Power of compounding 
vests with the State Government-But by Issuing the impugned notifications It 
could not have authorized continuation of the offence which was permitted to 
be compoundea' by payments o/the amountsf1Xed-lf permitted to be continued, 
It would amount to fresh commission o/the offence/or which the compounding 
D was done-Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989-Rule 95(2). 
In the present writ petition under Article 32 'of the Constitution, the 
petitioners have questioned legality of certain notifications purportedly 
Issued by various States under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
E 
Stand of the petitioners Is that by the notifications certain acts outside the 
.. 
ambit of Section 200 of the Act have been covered, though those were 
. 
' 
committed In clear violation of mandate of Sections 113 and 114 read with 
Section 194 of the Act and that the notifications In effect condone the 
offence and permit.its continuance though legally no such continuation 
could have been permitted. Illustratively it is stated that when any person 
F drives or allows to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle 
exceeding the specified weight in terms of Section 113(3) the excess weight 
has to be off-loaded at the cost of the transporter but In essence the 
impugned notifications issued by State Government permit carriage of the 
excess weight after compounding. 
G 
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not in 
any way authorize the State Government to permit the excess weight to 
be carried when on various inspection/detection it is noticed thatthere is 
carriage of load beyond the permissible limit. It only gives an opportunity 
H 
118 
( 
PARAMJIT BHASIN v. U.0.1. 
119 
of compounding so that instead of the amounts fixed, lesser amounts can A 
be accepted by the authorised officers. The intention of off-loading the 
excess weight is apparent from a bare reading of Section 194(1). The 
liability to pay charge for off-loading of the excess load Is fixed on one 
who drives a vehicle or causes a motor vehicle to be driven in 
contravention of the provisions of Sections 113, 114 and 115. It ls to be 
noted that compounding can be done either before or after the institution B 
of the prosecution in respect of the enumerated offences. Any notification 
which runs counter to the clear Import of Section 194 has no validity. After 
compounding the excess load, same. cannot be permitted to be carried In 
the concerned vehicle. Such carriage would amount to Infraction of Section 
113 of the Act. (123-D, Fl 
C 
1.2. It Is apparent from the reply filed by the Union of India that 
overloading causes significant damage to the road surface and also cause 
pollution through auto emissions. Even overloaded vehicles are safety 
hazards not only for themselves, but also for other road users. It Is pointed 
out that since the responsibility of enforcing of the provisions of the Act D 
and the Central Rules is that of the State Government they have been 
advised by the Central Government to scrupulously enforce the provisions 
of the Act and the Central Rules. (124-F, GI 
1.3. It is Indisputable that the power of compounding vests with the 
State Government, but the notification Issued in that regard cannot E 
authorize continuation of the offence which Is permitted to be compounded 
by payments of the amounts fixed. If permitted to be continued, it would 
amount to fresh commission of the offence for which the compounding 
was done. The State Governments which have not yet withdrawn the 
notifications shall do it forthwith. So far as the practical difficulties F 
highlighted are concerned, it is for the State Governments concerned to 
make necessary arrangements to ensure that the difficulties highlighted 
can be suitably remedied by the State Government themselves without in 
any way overstepping statutory prescriptions. (127-B, q 
P. Ratnakar Rao and Ors. v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors., (1996] 5 SCC 359, G 
referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 136 of 
2003. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.