PARESHKUMAR DEVILAL SANKESHARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, of which notice was waived by learned counsel and learned Government Pleader for respondents. The petitioners are aggrieved by orders dated 09.3.2011, whereby registration of vehicles of the petitioners has been suspended for the period from 01.03.2011 to 29.05.2011. Admittedly, show cause notices dated 09.03.2011 were issued under the provisions of section 53 (1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ?the Act?) with the allegation that the vehicles were used in a public place causing danger to the public. The impugned orders appear to have been made on the same day, on the same basis, exercising the power under section 53 (1).

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, proceedings against the petitioners were initiated on the basis of complaint dated 03.03.2011 made by a proposed committee, styled as ?Sadak-Sadak Sapati Ane Overloading Transporting Ane Mineral Royalty Chhori Atkav Samiti? and the complaint was, inter alia, about overloading of the vehicles by the petitioners. The petitioners made applications before the A.R.T.O., Himmatnagar on 09.03.011 to state that the vehicles in question have been forcibly taken away on 01.03.2011 by the association of respondent No.5 and lodged at Dhansura Police Station through Mamlatdar. Even as the factum of overloading was admitted by the petitioners, It was fairly conceded by learned Government Pleader that the action of suspension of registration was sought to be justified by the authorities on the basis that the default was covered by section 53 (1) (a) of the Act, although the impugned orders were made in exercise of the powers related to the default described in section 53 (1)(b) of the Act. It was pointed out by learned counsel Mr.R.B.Dave, appearing for the petitioners, that, according to the express provisions of section 53 (1), the authority is authorized to suspend the certificate of registration of vehicle, in the case falling under clause (1) (a) of section 53, until the defects are rectified to the satisfaction of the authority; and the power to suspend registration for a period not exceeding four months could be exercised only in case the default is covered by section 53 (1) (b). The overloading of goods was not covered by section 53 (1) (b) and the registration could not be suspended after the defect was rectified. He submitted that, by now, the overloading was removed and the impugned orders could not be defended as illegality was writ large on the impugned orders.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the petitions are allowed, with the directions that impugned orders dated 09.03.2011 shall stand quashed, the vehicle Nos.GJ-9-Z-5541 and GJ-9-Z-5558 of the respective petitioner shall be returned to them, if they are still under illegal detention, and respondent No.5 shall pay to each of the petitioners Rs.5,000/-, by way of cost. Rule in each petition is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.