Pitamber Singh. Vs. PravIn Shankar Rai; Regional Transport Officer; Bijnor.

Pitamber Singh. vs PravIn Shankar Rai; Regional Transport Officer; Bijnor.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 03, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/912321

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/912321
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Vikram Nath, J.
Decided On: Aug 03, 2010
Case Number: CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2600 of 2010
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[ALTAMAS KABIR; CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] - Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the Respondent No.1 filed Criminal Application No.3034 of 2008 in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 16th August, 2007 of the Judicial Magistrate, First C...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pitamber Singh.

Advocate Ram Kishor Gupta, Adv.

Respondent

PravIn Shankar Rai; Regional Transport Officer; Bijnor.

Excerpt

[altamas kabir; cyriac joseph, jj.] - special marriage act, 1954 - aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned sessions judge, the respondent no.1 filed criminal application no.3034 of 2008 in the high court under section 482 cr.p.c. challenging the order dated 16th august, 2007 of the judicial magistrate, first class, amravati and the order dated 2nd may, 2008 of the sessions judge, amravati. in the meanwhile, the respondent no.2 filed an application in misc. crl. application no.203 of 2007 in the court of the judicial magistrate, first class, amravati, praying for modification of its order dated 16th august, 2007 and a direction to the appellant to leave the house of respondent no.2. the said criminal appeal no.159 of 2008 was allowed by the learned sessions judge vide his judgment dated 15th july, 2009. the judgments and orders, both of the learned sessions judge, amravati, dated 15th july, 2009 and the nagpur bench of the bombay high court dated 5th march, 2010, in crl. writ petition no.588 of 2009 are set aside. consequently, the trial court shall also proceed against the said respondent nos.2 and 3 on the complaint filed by the appellant......contained in the judgment of the apex court be followed. 4. in the short counter affidavit, filed today, what has been stated is that although the overloaded vehicles are being checked and seized but after taking penalty, the overloading is compounded and no de-overloading activity is carried out. it is further submitted that the enforcement department of regional transport office, bijnor has already made a recovery of rs.93,98,900/- as compounding fee from the overloaded vehicles for the period 1.4.2009 to 28.2.2010. it is further mentioned in the order dated 23.3.2010 that an amount of rs.8,60,650/- has been recovered from 1.3.2010 till 23.3.2010. 5. the order of the apex court is not giving license to the transport authorities to raise funds but was to the effect that overloading is to be removed. nothing has been placed on record to show what steps has been taken by the state government in pursuance to the directions of the apex court in the case of paramajit bhasin (supra). 6. list this case on 31.08.2010. by the said date the principal secretary, transport and the transport commissioner shall file their respective affidavits to place on record the compliance of the judgment of the apex court in letter and spirit. 7. a copy of this order may be sent to them by sri a.c. mishra, learned standing counsel within three days. it will be open to the learned counsel for the applicant to make a mention on the next date for taking up the case out of turn in case there is likelihood of the case not being taken up. 8. a copy of this order may be provided to sri a.c. mishra, learned standing counsel free of costs within 48 hours for necessary compliance.

Full Judgment

1. Sri A.C. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel has filed a short counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party, Praveen Shankar Rai, A.R.T.O. (Enforcement), Bijnor. The same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A.C. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party.

3. The Apex Court in the case of Paramajit Bhasin and others versus Union of India and others, reported in 2006 (1) AWC 158 (SC), in paragraph 12 directed that the State Government should make necessary arrangements to ensure that the compounding of overloading which was held to be an offence no longer continued. It further directed that the State Government should withdraw such notification of compounding and should ensure that no vehicle overloaded is allowed on road. Pursuant thereto, when the State of U.P. was not making necessary compliance of the judgment of the Apex Court, writ petitions were filed, one of them being Writ Petition No.53211 of 2008, Pitamber Singh versus State of U.P. and others filed by the applicant. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2008. The Division Bench while disposing of the said petition permitted the applicant Society to assist the police at least in the district Bijnor to check that the overloaded vehicles are not permitted to ply and further that the directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Court be followed.

4. In the short counter affidavit, filed today, what has been stated is that although the overloaded vehicles are being checked and seized but after taking penalty, the overloading is compounded and no de-overloading activity is carried out. It is further submitted that the Enforcement Department of Regional Transport Office, Bijnor has already made a recovery of Rs.93,98,900/- as compounding fee from the overloaded vehicles for the period 1.4.2009 to 28.2.2010. It is further mentioned in the order dated 23.3.2010 that an amount of Rs.8,60,650/- has been recovered from 1.3.2010 till 23.3.2010. 5. The order of the Apex Court is not giving license to the Transport Authorities to raise funds but was to the effect that overloading is to be removed. Nothing has been placed on record to show what steps has been taken by the State Government in pursuance to the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Paramajit Bhasin (supra).

6. List this case on 31.08.2010. By the said date the Principal Secretary, Transport and the Transport Commissioner shall file their respective affidavits to place on record the compliance of the judgment of the Apex Court in letter and spirit.

7. A copy of this order may be sent to them by Sri A.C. Mishra, learned Standing counsel within three days. It will be open to the learned counsel for the applicant to make a mention on the next date for taking up the case out of turn in case there is likelihood of the case not being taken up.

8. A copy of this order may be provided to Sri A.C. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel free of costs within 48 hours for necessary compliance.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Pitamber Singh. vs PravIn Shankar Rai; Regional Transport Off... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Vikram Nath, J.

Land Acquisition