Holding

Section 200 does not empower State Governments to permit the continued carriage of excess load after compounding; such notifications are invalid.

Summary

The petitioners challenged state government notifications that allowed vehicles to continue carrying excess load after the offence had been compounded under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court examined the provisions of Sections 113, 114, 194 and 200, holding that Section 200 only permits compounding of the offence and does not authorize the continued carriage of overloaded weight. It observed that the intention of Section 194 is to require off‑loading of excess load, and any notification permitting its continuation is ultra vires. The Court also noted the safety and environmental hazards of overloading and the need for strict enforcement by the states. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned notifications invalid and ordered their withdrawal, disposing of the writ petition.

Issues considered

The scope of power conferred by Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with respect to permitting continuation of overloading after compounding.
Whether state notifications allowing carriage of excess load after compounding are consistent with Sections 113, 114, 194 and 200 of the Act.
Whether the notifications amount to a fresh commission of the offence and are therefore ultra vires.
The constitutional validity of the notifications under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989s. Rule 95(2)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 113, s. 114, s. 194, s. 200

Subjects

overloadingcompoundingMotor Vehicles ActSection 200Section 194state notificationsroad safetyArticle 32

Judgment

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
offence-Held, No-After compounding. the excess load, same cannot be
c 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-lfpermitted 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.
Stand of the petitioners Is that by the notifications certain acts outside the
E 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
drives or allows to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle
F 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.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Gauri Chhabra and Ms. Sudha Pal for the
Petitioners.

Mohan Prasaran, Additional Solicitor General, Dr. R.G. Padia, Mrs.
Anil Katiyar, Manish Tiwari, Gaurav Dhingra, Chidanand D.L., Nitesh Rana,
B.K. Prasad, Vivek Sood, Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Ms. Hemantika Wahi,
B Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, Pradeep Misra, Anuvrat Shann~ B.S.
Banthia, Anil K. Mishra, Sanjay R. Hegde, Ms. Pinky Anand, V.N.
Raghupathy, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Manish Kumar, Ansar Ahmad
Chaudhary, Ajay Siwach, T.V. George, Pramod B. Agarwala and Ms. Praveena
Gautam for the Respondents.
c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by\

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. In this petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution oflndia, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') the petitioners have
questioned legality of certain notifications purportedly issued by various States
D like Punjab and Haryana, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa,
· Maharashtra, Kamataka and Uttar Pradesh under the provisions of Section
200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). 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
E Act. The notifications have beeri issued which in effect condone the offence
and permit its continuance though legally no such continuation could have
been pennitted. It is the stand of the petitioners that under the Act and the
Rules made thereunder the maximum gross weight of the vehicles, more
particularly, transport vehicles have been fixed. Both under the Motor Vehicles
F Act, 1939 (in short the 'Old Act') and the Act maximum gross weight for
each axle of a truck in relation to the size and number of tyres fitted therein
is prescribed. The Ministry of Surface and Transport was empowered by the
Old Act and the Act to specify maximum gross weight and maximum weight
of transport vehicles. Chapter VII of the Act deals with construction, equipment
and maintenance of motor vehicles. Section 110 empowers the Centi:al
G Government to make Rules in respect of several matters. Power has also been
conferred to make Rules under Section 111. As a part of Chapter VII under
the heading "Control of Traffic" the limits of weight and limitations on use
have been prescribed under Section 113. Section 114 deals with the powers
to have vehicle weighed. Section 194 makes driving of vehicles exceeding
H permissible limit an offence and consequences of contravention of the
-
PARAMJIT BHASIN v. U.0.1. [PASAYAT, J.] 121
provisions contained in Sections 113, 114 and 115 have been set out. Section A
200 deals with composition of certain offences under several sections including
Section 194.

As noted above, stand of the petitioners is that what is permissible is
composition of offences punishable under Section 194. It does not, however,
pennit continuance of the infraction after the compounding. Illustratively it B
is stated that when any person drives or allows to be driven in any public
place any motor vehicle exceeding the specified weight (in tenns of Section
I 13(3)) the excess weight has to be off-load at the cost of the transporter. But
in essence notifications issued by State Government permit carriage of the
excess weight after compounding. C
The Union of India in its response has pointed out that when several
notifications issued by various State Governments were brought to the notice
of the Central Government, it resulted in anxious consideration by the officials
of the Central Government. Several meetings were called and the State
Governments were given suitable directions for withdrawal/modification of D
the notifications. Some of the States to whom notices were issued in the
present case have filed counter-affidavits while others have orally submitted
about action taken by them, on the basis of the discussions held at the meeting
with the Central Government officials. We shall deal with the individual
cases later on.
E
Sections 113, 114, 194 and 200 read as follows:

"l 13. Limits of weight and limitations on use-(I) The State
Government may prescribe the conditions for the issue of pennits for
[transport vehicles] by the State or Regional Transport Authorities
and may prohibit or restrict the use of such vehicles in any area or F
route.

(2) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, no person shall drive or
cause or allow to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle
which is not fitted with pneumatic tyres.
-t
G
(3) No person shall drive or cause or allow to be driven in any public
place any motor vehicle or trailer -

(a) the unladen weight of which exceeds the unladen weight
specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, or
H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. S S.C.R.

A (b) the laden weight of which exceeds the gross vehicle weight
specified in the certificate of registration.
(4) Where the driver of person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer
driven in contravention of sub-section (2) or clause (a) of sub-section .
(3) is not the owner, a court may presume that the offence was
B committed with the knowledge of or under the orders of the owner
of the motor vehicle or trailer.
114. Power to have vehicle weighed: (I) Any officer of the Motor
Vehicles Departme;H authorized in this behalf by the State Government
shall, if he has reasons to believe that a goods vehicle or trailer is
c .being used in contravention of Section 113 require the driver to convey
the vehicle to a weighing device, if any, within a distance of ten
kilometers from any point on the forward route or within a distance
of twenty kilometers from the destination of the vehicle for weighment;
and if on such weighment the vehicle is found to contravene in any
.respect the provisions of Section 113 regarding weight, he may, by
D order in writing, direct the driver to off-load the excess weight at his
own risk and not to remove the vehicle over trailer from
, ' I
that place
¥ntil the laden weight has been reduced or the vehicle or trailer ·
otherwise been dealt with so that it complies with Section 113 and on
receipt of such notice, the driver shall comply with such directions.
E
(2) Where the person authorized under sub-section (1) makes the said
· ··· . order \n writing, he shall also endorse the relevant details of the
· .- .overloading on the goods carriage permit and also intimate the fact
oti,such endorsement to th'e authority which issued that permit.

F 194. Driving vehicle exceeding pe1missible weight: (1) Whoever
drivers a· motor vehicle or causes or allows a ~otor vehicle to be
~riven in contravention of the provisions of Section 113 or Ser.tion
114 or Section 115 shall be punishable with minimum tine of two
thousand rupees and an additional amount of one thousand rupees per
tonne of excess load, together with the liability to pay charges for
G off-loading of the excess load.
(2) Any driver of vehicle who refuses to stop and submit his vehicle
to weighing after being directed to do so by an officer authorized in
this behalf under Section 114 or removes or cause to removal of the
load or part of it prior to weighing shall be punishable with tine
H -,
PARAMJIT BHASIN v. U.0.1. [PASAYAT, J.) 123
which may extend to three thousand rupees. A
200. Composition of certain offences: (1) Any offence whether
committed before or after the commencement of this Act punishable
under Section 177, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180, Section
181, Section 182, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 183,
Section 184, Section 186, Section 189, sub-section (2) of Section B
190, Section 191, Section 191, Section 194, Section 196, or Section
198, may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be
compounded by such officers or authorities and for such amount as
the State Government may, by notification in official gazette, specify
in this behalf.
c
(2) Where an offence has been compounded under sub-section (1) the
offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings
shall be taken against him in respect of such offence."

Section 200 does not in any way authorize the State Government to
permit the excess weight to be carried when on various inspection/detection D
it is noticed that there is carriage of load beyond the permissible limit. It only
gives an opportunity of compounding so that instead of the amounts fixed,
lesser amounts can be accepted by the authorised officers. The intention of
off-loading the excess weight is apparent from a bare reading of the Section
194(1). The liability to pay charge for uploading of the excess load is fixed E
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 is to be
noted that compounding can be done either before or after the institution of
the prosecution in respect of the enumerated offences. Any notification which
runs counter to the clear import of Section 194 has no validity. As rightly
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners after compounding the excess F
load, same cannot be permitted to be carried in the concerned vehicle. Such
carriage would amount to infraction of Section 113 of the Act. The object for
which the maximum permissible weights have been fixed is crystal clear. On
a perusal of the provisions it is clear that the maximum gross weight (in short
'GVB') of the trucks is 16.2 tonnes which enables loading of about 9 tonnes. G
The load rating is primarily based on the road design, specifications of Indian
roads. Rule 95(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short 'the
Central Rules') prescribes the principles which cover the fixation of GVB of
the vehicles. The same reads as follows:-

"Rule 95(2): The maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A safe axle weight of each axle of a vehicle shall, having regard to the
size, nature and number of types and maximum weight permitted to
be carries by the types as per sub-rule (l), be -

(i) Vehicle rating of the gross vehicle weight and axe! weight
respectively as duly certified by the testing agencies for
B compliance of the rule 126, or
(ii) the maximum vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of
each vehicle respectively as notified by the Central Government,
or
(iii) the maximum total load permitted to be carried by the tyre as
c specified in sub-rule ( l) for the size and the number of the tyres
fitted on the axles (s) of the vehicle.
Whichever is less:

Provided that the maximum gross vehicle weight in respect of all
D vehicles, including multi axle vehicles not be more than the sum total
of all the maximum safe axle weights put together."

The Government of India had also fixed GVB for different categories
of vehicles. Reference may be made to notifications dated 18th October,
1996 (no. S0728(E) and 26th May, 2000 (no. S05 l 7E) issued by the Ministry
E of Surface Transport (Department of Road Transport and Highways) (Transport
Wing).

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
F . themselves, but also for other road users. It is pointed out that since the
responsibility of enforcing of the provisions of the Act and the Central Rules
is that of the State Government they have been adviseci by the Central
Government to scrupulously enforce the provisions of the Act and the Central
Rules. It appears that the matter was discussed at the 30th meeting of the
G Transport Development Council where the following decisions were taken:-
"(i) Strict enforcement of the provisions relating to overloading under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989.

(ii) The State Governments are not to issue special cards/passes which
H
: PARAMJITBHASINv. U.0.1. [PASAYAT,J.] 125
legalize overloading. A
(iii) ....... .

(iv)........ .

(v) Non-renewal of registration and denial of pennit to habitual
offenders of overloading. B
Complaints were received that several States were issuing green cards/
golden passes purportedly on the basis of the power of composition under
Section 202. After examining the matter the Central Government requested
the respective States to discontinue such cards/passes.
c
Learned counsel appearing for the States submitted that the system of
issuing cards/passes has been discontinued. However, it was submitted that
offloading excess weight from large number of vehicles creates traffic problems
and several other practical problems which according to them need to be
addressed.
D
The State of Gujarat has stated that though a system of special token
was introduced, the same has been withdrawn after the discussion with the
Central Government officers. It has been so stated in the counter-affidavit
filed. Learned counsel for the State of Haryana has stated that though the
counter affidavit has not been filed the notification which was earlier issued E
has been withdrawn. Learned counsel for the State of Orissa submitted that
though there was earlier a scheme in operation the same has been withdrawn
after discussion with Central Government officials on 13. IO .2003. Learned
counsel for the State of Maharashtra submitted that notification dated 24.6.1996
has been issued and at serial no.19 the limits of compounding charges have
been indicated. It is, however, fairly accepted that the object of fixing the F
maximum weights has not been specifically taken care of. It was assured that
proper notification keeping in view the object of Sections 113 and 114 shall
be issued shortly. Similar is the stand of learned counsel for the State of
Madhya Pradesh. Learned counsel for the State of U.P. submitted in the
counter-affidavit filed by them the notification which was issued earlier has G
been withdrawn by notification dated 1st December, 2003. Learned counsel
for the State of Rajasthan has candidly admitted that the notification issued
has not been withdrawn, but it shall be done forthwith. Similar is the position
with the State of Karnataka.

H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. S S.C.R.

A It is to be noted that the constitutional validity of Section 194 and 200
were challenged. It was noted in P. Ratnakar Rao and Ors. v. Govt. Of A.P.
and Ors., [1996] 5 SCC 359 that the discretion given under Section 200(1)
to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the
offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as
B follows:

"The contention raised before the High Court and repeated before us
by Shri Rajeev Dhavan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
is that the discretion given in Section 200( 1) of the Act is unguided,
uncanalised and arbitrary. Until an accused is conv~cted under Section
194, the right to levy penalty thereunder would not arise. When
c discretion is given to the court for compounding of the offence for
the amount mentioned under Section 200, it cannot be stratified by
specified amount. It would, therefore, be clear that the exercise of
power to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is
illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We
D find no force in the contention. For violation of Sections 113 to 115,
Section 194 accords penal sanction and on conviction for violation
thereof,- the section sanctions punishment with fine as has been
enumerated hereinbefore. The section would give guidance to the
State Government as a delegate under the statute to specify the amount
for compounding the offences enumerated under sub-section (1) of
E Section 200. It is not mandatory that the authorised officer would
always compound the offence. It is conditional upon the willingness
of the accused to have the offences compounded. It may also be done
before the institution of the prosecution case. In the event of the
petitioner's willing to have the offence compounded, the authorised
F officer gets jurisdiction and authority to compound the offence and
call upon the accused to pay the same. On compliance thereof, the
proceedings, if already instituted, would be closed or no further
proceedings shall be initiated. It is a matter of volition or willingness
on the part of the accused either to accept compounding of the offence
or to face the prosecution in the appropriate court. As regards
G canalisation and prescription of the amount of fine for the offences
committed, Seetion 194, the penal and charging section prescribes
the maximum outer limit within which the compounding fee would
be prescribed. The discretion exercised by the delegated legislation,
i.e., the executive is controlled by the specification in the Act. It is
H not necessary that Section· 200 itself should contain the details in that
PARAMJIT BHASIN v. U.O.I. [PASAYAT, J.J 127
behalf. So long as the compounding fee does not exceed the fine A
prescribed by the penal section, the same cannot be declared to be
either exorbitant or irrational or bereft of guidance."

(. It is indisputable that the power of compounding vests with the State
i Government, but the notification issued in that regard cannot authorize
continuation of the offence which is permitted to be compounded by payments B
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 highlighted are concerned, it is
for the State Governments concerned to make necessary arrangements to C
ensure that the difficulties highlighted can be suitably remedied by the State
Government themselves without in any way overstepping statutory
prescriptions.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
D
B.B.B. Writ Petition disposed of.