R THANGAVELU Vs. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE DHARMAPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common question of facts and law are involved in both the Writ Peti-tions, they are taken up together and dis-posed of by common order.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to W.P.No.22033 of 2002 are as follows:The petitioner is the owner of a Pub-lic Carrier bearing registration No.KA-02-AA/1177, which is covered by a National Permit. When the said vehicle was passing through Dharmapuri, it was checked by the respondent on 11.05.2002 and issued with a memo, charging that the lorry was overloaded by 14,740 kgs, the driver was without uniform and dis-obeyed Traffic signal. On the basis of these charges, the respondent has seized the records of the vehicle, such as Regis-tration Certificate, Permit, etc. On receipt of the information, the petitioner pro-ceeded to Dharmapuri and requested the respondent to return the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and permit, siezed by him on 11.05.2002. Before the respondents, the petitioner pointed out that Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enables the State Government to prescribe the maximum laden weight that the vehicle may carry and Section 114 of the Act authorises only the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department author-ised in this behalf of the State Govern-ment to proceed against the permit as per the said Section and Police Officers have no jurisdiction to take action against the petitioner. It is further submitted that in so far as the charge that the driver was not in uniform and disobeyed the Traffic signal, they are only petty offences and action may be taken against the driver. Though the petitioner has pointed out that the respondent in this Writ Petition has no jurisdiction to charge the peti-tioner for overloading, he has refused to return the records and insisted the peti-tioner to pay a compounding fee of Rs.5,000/- for the charge of overloading.

(3.) ON the contrary, Mr.A.Aru-mugam, learned Additional Government Pleader, referring to Section 206 and 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, submit-ted that Police Officers are empowered to impound documents for violation of per-mit conditions and therefore, the im-pugned notice issued by the respondents, directing the production of the vehicle's permit, Registration Book, Insurance Cer-tificate and driving licence, is valid in law. He further submitted that the re-spondents have every jurisdiction to di-rect the permit holders to produce the records and if the goods vehicle/public carrier exceeds the permissible weight, the Police Officers are empowered to take penal action against the holder of the per-mit.Heard the learned counsel appear-ing for the parties and perused the mate-rials available on record.