Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 113
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for records and quash the impugned order passed in R.No. 7625/C1/2001, dated 01-07-2004 by the 1st respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following order:
ORDER:
In the instant case the transport authority issued a show cause notice dated 10.08.2001 to the petitioner proposing to levy compounding fee of Rs.7,33,900/- on the ground that the petitioner transported different goods under the public distribution system overloading the same and the said overloading is an offence under Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. Accordingly, the compounding fee was levied. Admittedly no inspection has been made and the compounding fee on the presumed overloading cannot be levied without making any check on the said vehicle. In the circumstances this Court allowed WP.No.15462 of 2004 in which the similar question falls for consideration. Following the said judgment in WP.No.15462 of 2004, this writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms thereof. No costs. March 18, 2005 Dsk ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Friday the Eighteenth day of March Two thousand and Five. To 1 The Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool 2 The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool 3 The Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Vigilance & Enforcement Department, Kurnool 4 Two CCs to GP For Transport, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 5 Two CD Copies.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.