C R MURUGESAN Vs. C SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these applications have been filed alleging violation of Sections 46 and 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules 84 to 90 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

(2.) It is alleged that the petitioner has been penalised for alleged over load in respect of the petitioners' vehicle under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it is further submitted that this cannot be done and a direction is sought to adhere to the National Permits issued by the State Transport Authority of the different States/North Eastern Region in favour of the petitioners' vehicles mentioned therein including the condition relating do pay load. These vehicles when they were plying in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, were stopped and their load were checked and an order was passed to show cause as to why they should not be penalised for violating the load condition prevalent in those State.

(3.) I have heard Sri R.L. Yadav, Learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Sarma, Learned Govt. Advocate for the Union of India, Shri B.P. Kataky, Learned Govt. Advocate for the State of Tripura, Shri. K.P. Pathak, Learned Asstt. Advocate General for the State of Mizoram, Mrs. A. Hazarika, Govt. Advocate for the State of Assam, Mr. A. Sarma, Learned Govt. Advocate for the State of Meghalaya and Sri P. Khataniar Learned Govt Advocate for the State of Nagaland.