P K JALEEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are truck owners acting as Public Carriers for transporting goods across the country under national permits issued under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. In some cases, the truck owners carry goods for their own purposes either for sale or for consumption as raw material or otherwise for industry. The vehicles involved are registered in various states. Including the State of Kerala. The grievance of the petitioners is that the gross vehicle weight endorsed in the RC book of the vehicles registered in Nagaland, and in some other States, is not accepted by the motor vehicle authorities in Kerala as the same is not in conformity with notification No S.O. 728(E) dated 18.10.1996 issued by the Central Government. According to the petitioners, the endorsement of gross vehicle weight made by these states, particularly, the State of Nagaland is within the limits prescribed by Rule 95(1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, hereinafter called the Rules , which provides a table for computation of the gross vehicle weight on the basis of the number, size and ply rating of tyres fitted in each vehicle. So far as the registered owners of the trucks in Kerala are concerned, their grievance is that the endorsement of the gross vehicle weight by the motor vehicles registering authorities in Kerala is the lowest of the maximum gross vehicle weight fixed on the basis of 3 norms provided in Rule 95(2) of the Rules, which are the same as the criteria laid down in the notification above referred to. The vehicles registered in Nagaland and in some other states have gross vehicle weight endorsed in the registration certificates based on the load-capacity of load of all the tyres put together as provided under Rule 95(1), and the motor vehicle authorities of those States have ignored the mandate of Rule 95(2) which says the lowest of the gross vehicle weights coming under the three norms should be endorsed in the RC book.

(2.) I have heard all counsel appearing for the petitioners in the batch of cases and the learned Advocate General representing the State and the Central Government standing Counsel. According to the learned Advocate General the Central Government is the sole authority to prescribe norms for the maximum gross vehicle weight for each make and module of transport vehicle under section 58(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, hereinafter called the Act , and Rule 95 of the Rules is prescribed in this regard. The notification dated 18.10.1996 referred to in the Original Petitions is admittedly incorporated in Rule 95(2) of the Rules. He has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in N. VENKATESWARA RAO V. S.T.A., (1997) 2. S.C.C. 320, whereunder the Supreme Court has rejected a challenge against the very same notification on the ground of excessive delegation.

(3.) The petitioners contend that various types of heavy duty trucks used by them can carry load permitted in terms of the norms prescribed under Rule 95(1) and refusal of the respondents to permit such load being carried, inspite of endorsement in the RC books issued by the Nagaland and some other States in not justified. According to the petitioners, the only criterion to be adopted is the tyre capacity in terms of the table provided under Rule 95(1) and they are praying for a direction to the respondents to permit such load, wheras the respondents are willing to permit only the lowest of the gross vehicle weight computed by applying the norms provided in Rule 95(2) of the Rules. In respect of various vehicles registered in State like Nagaland, Haryana, etc. where higher gross vehicle weight is endorsed in the RC books, the petitioners contention is that the respondents cannot detain those vehicles on account of any excess load. The petitioners, grievance is that the respondents have no objection in transporting the so-called overloads which, according to them, are within the eligible limit under Rule 95(1) but on payment of fine as per Section 194 of the Act and not on receipt of tax. In other words, respondents are regularly collecting fine on each load without demanding tax.