IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 02ND OF SEPTEMBER, 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

WRIT PETITIONS NO.100486-100503 OF 2014 (GM-RES)

C/W

WRIT PETITIONS NO. 102928-102929, 104203-104204,

100360-100364, 100794, 100207-100208,

100159-100171, 108112, 107136, 106908, 107971,

104299, 107945, 107482 OF 2014,

38835 OF 2009, 63447-63458 OF 2009 AND

69015 OF 2010

WRIT PETITIONS NO.100486-100503 OF 2014

BETWEEN

1. HASSNSAB ALLABAKSH MULLANAVAR

AGE: 43 YEARS,OCC: OWNER

R/O. SUBHAS NAGAR, GUDIHAL ROAD, OLD HUBLITQ: HUBLI

DIST: DHARWAD

2. SHAKEEL AHMED KERUR


R/O. H NO. 24, SIDDARAM NAGAR,2ND CROSS, GOPANKOPPAHUBLI

DIST: DHARWAD

3. RAMU DEVAKATEAGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: OWNER

R/O. JANGALIPETH KURBAR ONI, HUBLI

2

2

DIST: DHARWAD

4. RUSTUMSAB APPASAHEB TEKADI

AGE:28 YEARS,OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 35/2, SADAR SOFA, OLD HUBLI,

HUBLI DHARWAD

5. ISHAPPA TEJAPPA MOTEKARAGE: 52 YEARS,OCC: OWNER

R/O. NEAR VAJRA HANUMAN NAGAR,IBRAHIMPUR BAGALKOT ROAD,

BIJAPUR, DIST: BIJAPUR

6. GANGAVVA W/O. G HOSAMANI


R/O. H NO. 3, 5TH CROSS,BANKERS COLONY, HUBLI

TQ: HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD

7. GANGANAGOUD B HOSAMANIAGE: 46 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 3, 5TH CROSS,BANKERS COLONY, HUBLI


8. MALLIKARJUN K ARALIMARAAGE: 35 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. AT POST AGADI, TQ: HUBLI

DIST: DHARWAD

9. BASHIR AHMED R PATIL


R/O. NEAR JOSHI HOSPITALIST CROSS, AYODHYA NAGAR,HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI

3

3

DIST: DHARWAD

10. SIDDIQUE BEGUM PATIL

AGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: OWNERR/O. BYALI BUILDING, NEAR KALYAN MANTAP,

3RD CROSS,AYODHYA NAGAR, HUBLI


11. SHRIKANT NAGAPPA AIHOLEAGE: 30 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. KALMESHWAR NAGAR, NEAR BANNI TEMPLE,JANGALI PET, OLD HUBLI,


12. SUBHAS R HOSAMANI

AGE: 40 YEARS,OCC: OWNERR/O. SRI PADMAMADA CORPORATION BUILDING,

STALL NO. 1, P B ROADGARDEN PET, HUBLI

DIST: DHARWAD

13. MOHAMMED ALI ALLABAKSH MULLANAVAR


R/O.JODALLI, TQ: KALGHATAGIDIST: DHARWAD

14. BASAVARAJ SANNATAMMAPPA PUJARAGE: 28 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD

15. ASHOK NEELAPPA HITTALAMANI

AGE: 33 YEARS,OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 50, MARUTI CIRCLE

4

4

GANESH COLONY, NEKAR NAGAR,

OLD HUBLITQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD

16. MANJUNATH BASAVARAJ PUJARAGE: 34 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 64/A, NEAR 2ND BOREWELL,

MARUTI CIRCLE, NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD

17. MEENAKSHI MARUTI MOTEKARAGE: 29 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. ANAND NAGAR, NEAR WATER TANK,OLD HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI

DIST: DHARWAD

18. IMAM HUSSAIN KUTUBUDDIN BASAPURIAGE: 27 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 07, 2ND CROSSVEERABHADRA NAGAR, BELGAUM

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

R/BY DEPT. TRANSPORTM S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE

2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

UTTAR KANNADAKARWAR

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUTTAR KANNADA

KARWAR

5

5

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONKARWAR,

UTTAR KANNADA

5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

HONNAVAR, TQ:HONNAVARDIST: UTTAR KANNADA

6. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERKARWAR , TQ: KARWAR

DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

7. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERSIRSI, TQ: SIRSIDIST: UTTAR KANNADA

... RESPONDENT(S)

(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR RESPONDENT STATE)

THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER

DTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICTMAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTNO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDEANNEXURE-C; AND ETC.


BETWEEN

1. SAMEENA PARVEENW/O,. MAQSOOD HONNYAL

AGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKR/O. HUBLI, TQ:HUBLI

DIST: DHARWAD

2. GAIBUSAB HONNYALS/O. MEHABOOBSAB

6

6

AGE: 55 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESSR/O. HUBLI,

TQ:HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI F V PATIL & SRI PRUTHVI K S, ADVOCATES)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAR/BY ITS SECRETARY

DEPT. OF TRANSPORT,M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE


UTTARA KANNADAKARWAR


DIST: KARWAR

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONKARWAR

DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

5. THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERHONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVARDIST: UTTAR KANNADA

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5)

THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER

DTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICTMAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THEIMPUNGED ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT

7

7

NO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE

ANNEXURE-C.; AND ETC.

WRIT PETITIONS NO 104203-104204 OF 2014

BETWEEN

1. RAMASA N MISIKIN

AGE: 42 YEARSOCC: VEHICLE OWNERR/O. RON, TQ: RON

DIST: GADAG

2. ALLABAKSH A LATTIWALEAGE: 51 YEARS,OCC: VEHICLE OWNER

R/O. OLD HUBLI, TQ:HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. F V PATIL & PRUTHVI K S, ADVOCATES)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAR/Y DEPT. OF TRANSPORTM S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BANGALORE

2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATEUTTARA KANNADAKARWAR

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER


4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION


8

8


HONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVARDIST: UTTAR KANNADA

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-3 AND 45; SRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER

DATE 16.06.2008 BEARING NO.DCB/MAG-1/CR-514/2007-08 PASSEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UTTARA

KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B.; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDTD.31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3/THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-C; AND ETC.


BETWEEN

1. SYED KHAN HASSAN KHAN SHIVALLIAGE: 38 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 69/1, TORVIHAKKAL, HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD

2. RAMANATHA PURUL

S/O. RAMASWAMYAGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: OWNER

R/O. KAMALI VALASSUKADDANTHUR NORTH ARAVAI

TQ: KARUR

3. MUTTURAJA RAJAMANIAGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: OWNER

D NO. 65, RAJA GOUNDAMPALYAMSTREET 7

9

9

TQ: TIRUCHENGODE,

DIST: NAMAKAL

4. LEO PETER S/O. LASARAGE: 40 YEARS,OCC: OWNER

GANDHI NAGAR, MADUKARAICOIMBATORE

5. RAJAMANI SEMBURAJEAGE: 60 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. D NO. 57, RAJAGOUNDAMPALAYAM,

TQ: TIRUCHENGODEDIST: NAMAKAL

6. MAQSOOD MUQTIYAR PATELAGE: 35 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. KUMAR CHINCHALI,

TQ: HUMANBAD, DIST: BIDAR

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND


RPTD. BY DEPT OF TRANSPORTM S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BANGALORE


UTTAR KANNADAKARWAR


KARWAR

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONKARWAR

10

10

UTTAR KANNADA



... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR STATE)

THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER

DTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICTMAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTNO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDEANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES - B &

C ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OFTHE STACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN

UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHERGOODS; AND ETC.

WRIT PETITION NO.100794 OF 2014

BETWEEN

RAJESH

S/O. VILASARAO BILLEAGE: 45 YEARS,

OCC: VEHICLE OWNERR/O. BIDARI, TQ: KAGALKOLHAPUR,

MAHARASHTRA... PETITIONER


AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAR/BY DEPT. OF TRANSPORT

M S BUILDNG, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

11

11

BANGALORE


UTTAR KANNADAKARWAR


KARWAR


NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONUTTAR KANNADA

KARWAR



... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5; SHRI SACHIN S. MABADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNEDORDER DATED 16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THEDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B;

QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.10.2009 PASSED BY THERESPONDENT NO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA

VIDE ANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONSANNEXURES-B & C ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THETRANSPORTATION OF THE STACKING HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC.,

OF IRON ORE IN UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECTOF OTHER GOODS; AND ETC.


BETWEEN

1. RAVI S/O RAMA NAIKAGE: 33 YEARS,OCC: VEHICLE OWNER

12

12

R/O. MARUTI POORA, SHEDGERI

ANKOLA, TQ: ANKOLADIST: UTTAR KANNADA

2. IMTIYAZ S/O. HUSSAIN SHAIKHAGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: OWNER

R/O. NEAR JAMIYA MASJIDKALASIGADDE, TQ: ANKOLA

DIST: UTTAR KANNADA... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI F V PATIL , ADVOCATE)

AND


M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE



3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUTTARA KANNADA

DIST: KARWAR


NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONUTTARA KANNADA

DIST: KARWAR


HONNAVAR,TQ: HONNAVAR,

DIST: UTTAR KANNADA... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5; SHRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM AND SHRI P.R. BENTUR, ADVOCATES FOR

R4)

13

13

THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT

MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THEIMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTNO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE

ANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-B & CARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE

STACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; ANDETC.


BETWEEN

1. KALLAPPA M GUNDURAGE: 45 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. BAGAR PETH, OLD HUBLIHUBLI

DIST: DHARWAD

2. MOHAMMED HANIF YELLURS/O.IMAMSABAGE: 38 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O.KILLEONI, MUNDGOD

DIST: KARWAR

3. BASAVARAJ S/O. SANNATAMAPPA PUJAR


R/O. NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD

4. HASANSAB S/O. ALLABAKSH MULLANANARAGE: 43 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. JODALLI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI

DIST: DHARWAD

14

14

5. PARAMESHWARAPPA

S/O. VEERBHADRAPPA MADIWALARAGE: 52 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. CHOLACHAGUDDA,TQ: BADAMI

DIST: BAGALKOT

6. SUBASHS/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA HOSAMANIAGE: 62 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O.SRI PADMAMBA TRANSPORT STALL NO. 1,

CORPORATION BUILDING, P B ROAD, HUBLITQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD

7. KHALLEEL AHMEDS/O.GANISAB PHANIBAND


R/O. PLOT NO. 7, JANATA HOUSE,GOKUL DHAM, GUDIHAL ROAD, HUBLI,TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD

8. KASIMSAB MOHAMADSAH KURUBANNAVAR

AGE: 48 YEARS,OCC: OWNERR/O. MUNDGOD, TQ: MUNDGOD

DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

9. FARZANA N SHAIKHAGE: 37 YEARS,OCC: OWNER

R/O. KAKARMATH, TQ ANKOLADIST: UTTAR KANNADA

10. NAZEER AHMED S/O. GOUSESAB KUSANURAGE: 46 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. MAKABOLIYANAGAR,

TQ:HANAGAL,DIST: HAVERI

15

15

11. KHADAR GOUS

S/O. BABU SAB SHAIK SANADIAGE: 55 YEARS,

OCC: OWNERR/O. H NO. 35, SADASHIV NAGAR,OLD HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI

DIST: DHARWAD

12. JAVED S/O. SHIRAJ SHAIKHAGE: 31 YEARS,OCC: OWNER

R/O. HULIDEVARAWADA, ANKOLATQ: ANKOLA

DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

13. PAVAN M NAIK


R/O. HULIDEVARAWADA, ANKOLATQ: ANKOLA

DIST: UTTAR KANNADA... PETITIONERS


AND


M S BUILIDNG,DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BANGALORE



3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONEUTTARA KANNADA

KARWAR

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONUTTARA KANNADA

16

16

KARWAR


HONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVAR,DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR STATE;

SHRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDATED 16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT

MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THEIMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTNO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE

ANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURE - B & C AREAPPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE

STACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NO IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; AND

ETC.

WP NO 108112 OF 2014

BETWEEN

HOSNODDIN S/O HAJRATSAB SHAIKHAGE: 32 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESSR/O. MIRJAN KUMTA

DIST: KARWAR... PETITIONER


AND


R/BY ITS SECRETARYDEPT. OF TRANSPORT

M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE

17

17




KARWAR

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION,UTTARA KANNADA

KARWAR

5. THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERHONNAVAR,TQ: HONNAVAR


... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR STATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT

MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THEIMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTNO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE

ANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-B & CARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE

STACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; ANDETC.

WP NO 107136 OF 2014

BETWEEN

ADARSH SUJATA KALBHAGAGE: 28YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESSR/O. YELLAPUR, TQ: YELLAPURDIST: KARWAR

18

18

... PETITIONER


AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAR/BY ITS SECRETARY

DEPT. OF TRANSPORTM S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE

2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATEUTTARA KANNDA

KARWAR


UTTARA KANNDAKARWAR


NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONUTTARA KANNDAKARWAR

5. THE INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLE

& REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERHONAVAR, TQ: HONAVARDIST: UTTAR KANNADA

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 AND R5; SHRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED

ORDER DTD: 16-06-2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT /THEDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B;QUASHING TEH IMPUGNED ORDER DTD: 31-10-2009 PASSED BY THE

RESPONDENT NO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADAVIDE ANNEXURE-C; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI

DECLARING THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS- B & C ARE APPLICABLE ONLYIN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE STACKING,

19

19

HANDLING,EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTAR KANNADA

DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; AND ETC.

WP NO 106908 OF 2014

BETWEEN

BASAVARAJ S/O. SANNATAMAPPA PUJAR

AGE: 50YEARS,OCC: OWNERR/O. NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBLI

TQ:HUBLIDIST: DHARWAD

... PETITIONER


AND


R/BY ITS SECRETARYDEPT. OF TRANSPORTM S BUILDING,

DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE

2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATEUTTARA KANNADA

KARWAR

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERUTTARA KANNADAKARWAR


NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONUTTARA KANNADAKARWAR


HONNAVAR,TQ: HONNAVAR,

20

20

UTTARA KANNADA

KARWAR... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5; SHRI SACHIN S. MAGDUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICTMAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTNO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE

ANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-B & CARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THESTACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARA

KANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; ANDETC.

WP NO 107971 OF 2014

BETWEEN

ATIFUR REHMAN MANIYARAGE: 30 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESSR/O. HUBLITQ:HUBLI

DIST: DHARWAD... PETITIONER


AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAR/BY ITS SECRETARYDEPT. OF TRANSPORT



21

21

KARWAR





5. THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERHONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVAR


... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5;


THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT

MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THEIMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT

NO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDEANNEXURE-C; AND ETC.

WP NO 104299 OF 2014

BETWEEN

SANDESH P BANT

AGE: 34 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS

R/O. ANKOLA, TQ: ANKOLADIST: KARWAR

... PETITIONER


AND

22

22


BY ITS SECRETARYDEPT. OF TRANSPORT



KARWAR

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSI0NER





HONNAVAR,TQ: HONNAVARUTTARA KANNADA


(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5; SHRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF INDIA

PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.16.06.2008 PASSEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UTTARAKANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE IMPUNGED ORDER DATED

31.10.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3/THE DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDE ANNEXURE-B; DECLARE

THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-A & B ARE APPLICABLE ONLYIN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE STACKING,HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARA KANNADA

DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; AND ETC.

WP NO 107945 OF 2014

BETWEEN

23

23

MEHARUNNISA W/O DAVALSAB BEPARIAGE: 55 YEARS

OCC: BUSINESSR/O. VISHAL NAGAR, OLD HUBLITQ:HUBLI

DIST: DHARWAD... PETITIONER


AND


R/BY ITS SECRETARYDEPT. OF TRANSPORTM S BUILDING,

DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE




KARWAR


NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION,UTTARA KANNADA

KARWAR

5. THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

HONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVARUTTARA KANNADA


(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5; SHRI SACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OFCONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER

24

24

DTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT


NO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDEANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-B & CARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE

STACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; AND

ETC.

WP NO 107482 OF 2014

BETWEEN

1. D KARPAGAMAGE: MAJOR

OCC: VEHICLE OWNER2900, 4TH CROSS

B S K IIND STAGEBANGALORE

2. RAJEEV B RADHAKRISHNANAGE: 24 YEARS,

OCC: DRIVERCHERUNELLY, ERATAKULAM

PALAKKAD,DIST: PALAKKAD,DIST: KERALA

... PETITIONERS


AND


R/BY DEPT. OF TRANSPORTM S BUILDING,DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BANGALORE


25

25

KARWAR



4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION,


5. THE INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLEREGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

HONAVAR, TQ:HONAVARDIST: UTTAR KANNADA

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3 & R5;


THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERDTD.16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/THE DISTRICT


NO.3/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA VIDEANNEXURE-C; DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS ANNEXURES-B & CARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE

STACKING, HANDLING, EXPORTING ETC., OF IRON ORE IN UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER GOODS; AND

ETC;

WP NO 38835 OF 2009

BETWEEN

SIKANDAR MULLAS/O ABDUL REHAMAN SAB

AGE : 37 YRSOCC:BUSINESS

R/O NEAR NANDISHWAR EXTN,GADAGDIST:GADAG

... PETITIONER

26

26

(BY SRI F V PATIL ADVOCATE)

AND


UTTAR KANNADAKARWAR


KARWARUTTAR KANNADA

3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERKARWAR

UTTAR KANNADA... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER

VIDE ANNEX-D DTD 31.10.09 PASSED BY THE R1; QUASH THEIMPUGNED COMPOSITE ORDER VIDE ANNEX-E DTD 16.6.08 PASSED

BY THE R1; GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER OF STAY, TO STAY THEOPERATION AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THEIMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEX-D DTD 31.10.09 PASSED BY THE R1

AND STAY THE IMPUGNED COMPOSITE ORDER VIDE ANNEX-E DTD16.6.08 PASSED BY THE R1 AND RELEASE THE VEHICLE; AND ETC.

WP NOs. 63447-63458 OF 2009

BETWEEN

1. ABDUL RAHIM, S/O.MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SAVANUROCC:BUSINESS, R/O CHIDANAND ROAD,SAVANUR NOW R/A MALADAR ONI

NEAR GARDENPET,HUBLI

2. ZAKIR HUSSAIN S/O AHAMADSAB JUGALPETOCC:BUSINESSR/O SHADAT COLONY

27

27

3RD CROSS, FODIHALL ROAD,

HUBLI

3. MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN S/O ALLUDDINSAB HULAGUROCC:BUSINESSR/O NEKARNAGAR ROAD,

JAVALI PLOT, OLD HUBLI,

4. MOHAMMAD ASIF S/O HASABSAB GODMALOCC:BUSINESSR/O MOHAMMADNAGAR, NARAYANSOFA,

OLD HUBLI,

5. NOORJAHAN W/O ALTAF SAYYEDBY HER GPA HOLDER SAYYED ALTAFAGE:54 YRS, OCC:BUSINESS

R/O NEAR BILAL MASJID, KAKURMATH,ANKOLA

6. FIROZ S/O MOHAMMAD HANIFF KUSUGAL

OCC:BUSINESS, R/A H.NO.45,VISHAL NAGAR, BEHIND SIDDAROODMATH,OLD HUBLI

7. SHAMSHUDDIN S/O SAYYED ABDUL

OCC:BUSINESS,R/A NEAR KUKARMATH, ANKOLA

8. ABDUL RAZAQ S/O MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN PATWEGAROCC:BUSINESS,

R/A H.NO.333, KOVLEKAR PLOTSADAR SOFA, OLD HUBLI

9. SAYYED YUSUF S/O SAYYED KAREEMOCC:BUSINESS,

R/O ISLAM GALLI, YELLAPUR

10. BASHEER A JAGALPETH S/O A JAGALPETH

OCC:BUSINESS,R/A 3RD CROSS, SADAT COLONY,

GUDIHAL ROAD, OLD HUBLI

28

28

11. SANGEETA V NAIK

OCC:BUSINESS,C/O MAHESH S NAIK, LAXMI TRANSPORT

H.NO.309, KALAMMA NAGAR, YELLAPUR

12. ABDUL SAMAD S/O ABDUL KARMI MAVINHALLI

OCC:BUSINESS,R/O MUSLIM GALLI, SIRSI

... PETITIONERS(BY SRI F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KARWAR


NATIONAL HIGHWAYS DIVISIONKARWAR



(BY SHRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 & 3; SHRI M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THESE W.Ps ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER

DT.16/6/2008 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DECLARETHAT THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC 133 OF THE

CR.P.C PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER, VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISWHOLLY ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW;QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 18/12/2008, 22/12/2008, 16/12/2008,

12/12/2008 AND 12/12/08 PASSED BY THE R-3 AT ANNEXURES-D,D2, D3, D4 & D5 RESPECTIVELY AND A DIRECTION MAY BE ISSUED

TO R-1 TO 3 TO REFUND RS.42,000/- RECOVERED FROM EACH OFTHE PETITIONERS; AND ETC.

WP NO 69015 OF 2010

BETWEEN

29

29

1. SYED S/O : LATE KHALEELSAB MARUF

AGE : 45 YEARS, OCC : OWNER OF LORRYBEARING NO.KA-17/A-6206

R/O : D.NO.1390/02, 3RD MAIN8TH CROSS, KTJ NAGAR,DAVANAGERE

2. NORTH KARNATAKA LORRY OWNERS

ASSOCIATES (REGD) REP. BY ITS SECRETARYSHIVANAND S DHORONIAGE : 34 YEARS,

HUBLI - 580 029... PETITIONERS


AND

1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATEKARWAR,

UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT


NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISIONKARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT

3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERKARWAR, U.K. DISTRICT

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP R1 & R3; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER

VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED:31/10/2009, PASSED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-HDATED:16/06/2008, PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT; QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-J DATED:19/11/2009, PASSED BYTHE 1ST RESPONDENT; AND ETC.

30

30

These petitions coming on for orders, this day, the Courtmade the following:

O R D E R

The commonness in these petitions is that the petitioners

are challenging the orders dated 16th June 2008 and 31st October

2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada who

is the Executive Magistrate of the District for the purpose of

Section 133 Cr.P.C, and sought for quashing the same. The

Assistant Regional Transport Officer (hereinafter referred to as

‘ARTO’ for short) referred the said orders of the Executive

Magistrate and issued show-cause notices directing the

petitioners as to why they should not be penalised by imposing

`42,000/- fine for having transported the goods in excess of the

weight prescribed to carry as the same is an offence under

Section 133 Cr.P.C. and Section 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. The show-cause notices issued by the Regional

Transport Officers by referring the orders issued by the

Executive Magistrate, according to the petitioners is ultra vires of

provisions of Cr.P.C. and the Act. The learned counsel appearing

31

31

for the petitioners has challenged the impugned orders on the

following grounds. Firstly, the Executive Magistrate has no

jurisdiction and power to issue such notifications. Secondly, the

Executive Magistrate, has neither followed the procedures

prescribed under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. or the Act nor

issued preliminary or final notice and no specific order is passed

alleging the offence committed by the petitioners. The orders

passed in 2008-2009 have been made applicable in all the cases

wherever it is found that the vehicles are transporting goods

more than the prescribed limit.

3. The petitioners, who are the persons carrying iron

ore and the goods over and above the prescribed limit, have got

transport licence, fitness certificate, permit, etc. and as such

they do not suffer from any infirmities, however, it is alleged

that they are carrying goods more than the prescribed limit,

which is an error in the eye of law. Even if it is found that they

are transporting the goods which is in excess of the prescribed

limit, then as per the Notification dated 16th June 2008 passed

by the Executive Magistrate, Uttara Kannada it can be levied fine

32

32

of Rs.42,000/- approximately. Thereafter, another order has

been passed on 31st October 2009, reiterating the same amount

and fine. Both these orders are not in accordance with the

provisions of Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. Even if it is found that

they are transporting excess weight to the prescribed limit, in

view of the Government of Karnataka has issued notification on

3rd July 2000 under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

prescribing composition of certain offences; and as per the said

notification Item No.32, namely, driving a motor vehicle with

weight in excess of permissible weight, it is made Section 133,

134 read with 194 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the fine would be

Rs.2,000/- for having carried overload and Rs.1,000/- per tonne

of excess load together with liability to pay charges for off-

loading the excess load. If at all it is found that vehicles are

transporting the weight contrary to the said Sections, amount of

fine would be only as per notification dated 3rd July 2000.

However, show-cause notices have been issued to pay a fine of

Rs.42,000/-, it is contrary to the power delegated to the State

Government under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The

officer, who has got power under Section 133 Cr.P.C. to pass

33

33

conditional order for removal of nuisance, has to exercise the

said power in a given case, whereas, in the instant cases, by

referring to the 2008-2009 notification, it is universally made

applicable to all the persons wherever carrying of excess weight

to reasonable extent permissible. The learned counsel submits

that the show-cause notice issued by ARTO is without authority

of law and hence, are to be set aside and further the impugned

action of the Executive Magistrate is in contravention of the said

provisions and the notification is ultra vires to provision of

Section 133 Cr.P.C.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

State submits that, as the impugned notices themselves reflect,

the petitioners were carrying goods in excess of prescribed limit

which is an offence and rightly the Executive Magistrate has

exercised his power. The said notifications were challenged

before this Court in Writ Petition No.7116 of 2009 and the same

came to be disposed of confirming the penalty order of 2008-

2009. The ARTO, who has issued show-cause notices, is also an

34

34

officer for the purpose of issuing such notices. Hence, no error

could be found and the petitions be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The Executive Magistrate of the District could invoke Section 133

Cr.P.C. since he is specially empowered under the provisions.

Even he could take action by exercising his power if it is found

that the vehicle is carrying the weight in excess of the

permissible limit and creating nuisance. As per the Executive

Magistrate, if the vehicle is carrying the goods in excess of the

permissible limit, then he has to take action as per the

procedure established under the said provisions and also under

Section 134 to 136 of the Cr.P.C. The said section, further read,

that the Executive Magistrate, on receiving the report of a Police

Officer or other information and on taking such evidence, if he

thinks fit, call upon the concerned to appear before himself or

some other officer of the Executive Magistrate. The reading of

the said provision, clarifies that a person against whom offence

is alleged has to be issued a notice to appear before him or any

other officer on his behalf and issue a show cause notice as to

35

35

why the order should not be made absolute. The preliminary

orders made by him has to be confirmed by passing a final order

on the basis of the procedures prescribed in the said provision,

viz. the issuance of preliminary notification, show-cause notice

providing an opportunity to him to defend whether he has

caused nuisance or not and only thereafter action has to be

initiated. Further, the procedure prescribed under Section 134

of the Cr.P.C. with regard to service of Notification of order

which provides that the order shall be served on the persons

against whom it is made and Section 135 of the Act compels a

person to obey the order so passed under Section 133 and 134

of the Act and any failure of compliance, Section 136 comes into

picture. Unless the procedure prescribed under the Act are

followed, the Executive Magistrate cannot compel a person to

pay the fine amount. The Magistrate has to clarify himself that

when a person is being condemned for an offence committed, he

shall be provided fullest opportunity to defend his case and the

order of this nature or any order should be issued only after

following the procedure prescribed therein. However criminal he

might be, but it is a fundamental rule that he shall be and is

36

36

entitled for an opportunity before being condemned. When such

fundamental rule is prevailing, in contravention of the same, the

Executive Magistrate, by referring 2008-2009 order, levying a

fine of Rs.42,000/- which is an error. The Executive Magistrate

should have levied such fine if the person committing offence is

liable, but before that, the procedure as provided under Sections

133 and 134 of the Act should have been followed. In the

instant cases, I do not find any such procedure being followed by

the Executive Magistrate.

6. The officers authorised under the MV Act also can

invoke the power provided under the Act to levy fine and the

excess loading vehicles. Section 194 of the MV Act and sub-

section (1) and (2) of the Act enables the officer to punish a

person with fine of Rs.2,000/- and additional amount of

Rs.1,000/- per tonne of excess load together with liability to pay

charges for off-loading the excess load. When such power is

there, he should have invoked and passed necessary orders

under these provisions. A person who is discharging his duties

under the provisions of law, he shall have to discharge his power

37

37

only as per such provisions strictly and effectively and he cannot

carry on the fiat issued by Executive Magistrate in the year

2008-2009, and it cannot be pressed into service unless they are

in consonance with the provisions of either Motor Vehicles Act or

Cr.P.C. What is provided under Section 194 of the Motor

Vehicles Act for levying fine on the transporters who are carrying

excess weight was substituted in the year 1984 by virtue of

eroding of money value in the course of time and by taking into

consideration, the present value of money a suitable fine has to

be inflicted very stringently in order to prevent mischief. Even

the Executive Magistrate could levy the amount of Rs.40,000/-

unless he follows the procedure prescribed therein, it is not

permissible for him to levy the fine. The procedure provided

under Cr.P.C. and Motor Vehicles Act is sine quo non to levy or

punish a person. As is stated earlier, however criminal a person

is, he could not be punished unless giving him fullest opportunity

to defend his case.

7. In the instant cases, the respondents have levied

fine by referring 2008-2009 order without ascertaining whether

38

38

the person committed the offence or not and without even

providing an opportunity of hearing the transporter as to

whether he has carried the excess weight over and above the

permissible limit. Unless such provisions are followed, no action

shall be taken under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the

petitioners were permitted to carry the weight, viz. laden weight.

If excess weight is found, it is an offence under the provisions of

Act and also under Indian Penal Code. Carrying excess load is

against public policy is a nuisance and it affects the public at

large. The State and Central Governments lay the road

depending upon the vehicles that ply on that particular load and

bearable weight on the road. When such roads have been built

in a scientific manner and if are used improperly by carrying load

more than what is permissible limit, then they have to be

prevented strictly and as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act,

Cr.P.C. and Indian Penal Code and other provisions including the

National Highways Act, 1956.

8. In the light of the observations made, it is found that

the show-cause notices issued by Assistant Regional Traffic

39

39

Officer demanding payment of Rs.42,000/- per truck by referring

2008-2009 order which is without authority of law and are liable

to be set aside. Accordingly they are set aside.

9. The Assistant Regional Traffic Officer, Karwar in his

show-cause notice dated 16th August 2004 which is issued in

respect of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22/B-1169 directed

the petitioners to show cause within seven days and to produce

the documents as per Section 200 of the MV Act and also fine as

per the order of the Executive Magistrate dated 16th June 2008

and 31st October 2009 and the said show-cause notice has not

indicated as to whether there is a specific finding against the

petitioner for having committed an offence as per the

notification. Under the circumstance, the said notification are

set aside. Liberty is reserved to Executive Magistrate and also to

the ARTO to pass necessary orders as per law and the procedure

prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, Cr.P.C. and Indian

Penal Code as also the National Highway Authorities Act, 1956.

10. With these observations all the petitions stand

disposed of. The fine amount deposited by the petitioners in

40

40

these petitions shall not be permitted to withdrawn. Liberty is

also reserved to the petitioners to challenge the validity of rules

in appropriate cases.

SD/-

JUDGE

lnn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR...