DINESHKUMAR VASANTILAL KARNAVAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned AGP waives service. The petitioner has invoked Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 226 of the Constitution to challenge orders dated 9.3.2011 and 11.4.2011 so as to set aside the action of seizure and the orders suspending and confirming the suspension of registration of the vehicle of the petitioner from 4.3.2011 to 2.6.2011.

(2.) THE short and indisputable facts of the case are that the goods vehicle of the petitioner registered and plying with number GJ-6 VV-8455, with national permit was checked on 4.3.2011 and found to be overloaded. THErefore, show cause notice under Section 53 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ?the Act?) was issued to the petitioner, with the allegation that the vehicle was used in a public place posing danger to the public. THEreafter, the first impugned order dated 9.3.2011 was made by the Assistant R.T.O., Dahod, again expressly under the provisions of Section 53 (1) (b), suspending the registration of the said vehicle for the aforesaid period. THE petitioner preferred an appeal from that order and the second impugned order dated 11.4.2011 rejecting the appeal was made with the observation that the excessive overload carried on the vehicle put the case in the scope of Section 53 (1) (a) of the Act. Thus, in short the action of suspension of registration for four months was sought to be justified by the authorities on the basis that the default was covered by Section 53 (1) (a), although the impugned orders were made in exercise of powers related to the default described in Section 53 (1) (b) of the Act. Even while defending the impugned orders, learned AGP fairly, in no uncertain terms, conceded that the default of the petitioner was found to be covered by the provisions of Section 53 (1) (a) and the impugned orders were justified on that basis.