AMARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE
LAWS(J&K)-1982-10-7
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on October 07,1982

AMARJEET SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the notification No. TR -97/79/TC dated 7 -6 -1979 and the reliefs claimed in the petition are as follows i) By a writ of certiorari impugned order contained in Annexure3 may be quashed as being violatve of petitioners fundamental rights and as being without jurisdiction. ii) By a writ of Mandamus respondents be directed to allow the petitioners to conduct free trade and respect their right to carry on trade in a free and fair manner. iii) By a writ of prohibition or any other direction, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 be restrained from interfferring with the petitioners right of trade and free exercise of powers in terms of Annexure3". iv) Any other writ, order or direction, as may be warrants in the circumstances of the case to ensure freedom of the petitioners right of trade and to ensure free movement of the petitioners vehicles may be granted to them with appropriate costs of this writ petition. The validity of this Notification was previously challenged in this court in the case of Sh. Ghulam Mustafa Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir and ors (writ petition No. 186 of 1979) decided on October 10,1979. A Division Bench of this court has held that the notification fails within the purview of Section 43 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act and is constitutionally Valid. That knocks the bottom out of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition and the same must be disallowed.
(2.) FACED with this situation, counsel for the petitioners tried to challenge the validity of the Notification on alternative grounds, which are two fold. Firstly, that the notification is in the nature of the executive instruction and insofar as it provides that" operation of goods vehicle without Duly Slip will constitute an offence under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act," it is vitiated. Secondly, that the proper authority to implement the notification is the Motor Vehicles Department and not the Police Department, who are actually carrying the notification into effect. The relief claimed in the petition is patently unconnected with this contention. So viewed the contention is irrelevant. Leave that aside, the contention when considered on me its dose, not have any substance in it. By providing that the operation of a Goods Vehicle without duty slip will constitute an offence under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the notification does not create any new offence. All that it intends to convey is that the condition of the permit shall be that the goods vehicle shall not operate without a duty slip and that the contravention of such a condition, like the contravention of any other condition of the permit shall constitute an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act So providing the notification merely incorporates a statement of law and nothing more. Therefore, the first limb of the argument is misconceived.
(3.) SO far as the second limb of the argument is concerned, the police Department, as a Department charged with the duty of curbing offences, would certainly come in where a goods vehicle operates without a duty slip in contravention of the Notification inasmuch as the department can prosecute the person concerned for the contravention of the condition. So viewed the second limb of the argument is equally mis -conceived and cannot prevail. The result, therefore, is that this writ petition fails. It is dismissed accordingly.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.