{"id":162490,"date":"2011-08-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-05-11T12:39:52","modified_gmt":"2018-05-11T07:09:52","slug":"ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Sharma Transports vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Sharma Transports vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: …J.<\/div>\n
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, H.L. Dattu<\/div>\n
                                                                 REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n\n                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n          CIVIL APPELLATE\/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\n\n                  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1507 OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n\nM\/s Sharma Transports                               .............. Appellant\n\n\n\n\n                                    Versus\n\n\n\n\nThe State of Maharashtra & Ors.                 ..............Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                    WITH\n\n\n\n\n                  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1508 OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n\nM\/s Sangita Travel Agency & Ors.                   ..............Appellants\n\n\n\n\n                                    Versus\n\n\n\n\nThe State of Maharashtra & Ors.                        ........Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     1\n\n\n                                    WITH\n\n\n\n\n                  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1492 OF 2007\n\n\n\nM\/s N.T. Zameer Ahamed Khan Associates, Bangalore ........... Appellant\n\n\n\n\n                                    Versus\n\n\n\n\nThe State of Maharashtra & Ors.                 ..............Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                    WITH\n\n\n\n\n                  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1509 OF 2007\n\n\n\nK. Srinivas                                         .............. Appellant\n\n\n\n\n                                    Versus\n\n\n\n\nThe State of Maharashtra & Ors.                 ..............Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                    WITH\n\n\n\n\n                  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1493 OF 2007\n\n\n\nSouthern Carriers, Bangalore                        .............. Appellant\n\n\n\n\n                                    Versus\n\n\n\n\nThe State of Maharashtra & Ors.                 ..............Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  2\n\n\n                                    WITH\n\n\n\n\n                     CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1494 OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n\nM\/s. N.T. Zameer Ahamed Khan Associates,\n\nBangalore & Anr.                                     .............. Appellants\n\n\n                                    Versus\n\n\n\n\nThe State of Maharashtra & Ors.                       ..............Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                    WITH\n\n\n\n\n                WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 100 OF 2007\n\n\n\nIshwar Lal Sharma                                   .............. Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                    Versus\n\n\n\n\nState of Maharashtra & Ors.                           ..............Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                    WITH\n\n\n\n\n                WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 668 OF 2007\n\n\n\nVRL Logistics Limited                                   .............. Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                    Versus\n\n\n\n\nState of Maharashtra & Ors.                           ..............Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          3\n\n\n                                          WITH\n\n\n\n\n                   WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 566 OF 2009\n\n\n\nAnand, Managing Director\n\nVRL Logistics Ltd.                                                   .............. Petitioner\n\n\n                                          Versus\n\n\n\n\nState of Karnataka & Ors.                                         ..............Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
H.L. Dattu, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.             These appeals and writ petitions are directed against the order <\/p>\n
       of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.3 of <\/p>\n
       1996   dated   21.07.2006,   whereby   the   High   Court   has   held   that <\/p>\n
       transporters   (writ   petitioners   before   the   High   Court)   could   only <\/p>\n
       provide luggage space at the rear or the sides of a tourist vehicle as <\/p>\n
       mandated by Rule 128(9) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 <\/p>\n
       [hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   Rules”],   and   no   luggage   could   be <\/p>\n
       carried on the roof of the vehicle. The prayer in the writ petitions is <\/p>\n
       to   direct   the   respondents   therein   not   to   check,   levy   and   collect   the <\/p>\n
       compounding fee from the vehicles of the petitioners.<\/p>\n
                                                                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
2.            The   transport   operators   [hereinafter   referred   to   as   the <\/p>\n
      “transporters”] are in appeal by special leave before us, claiming that <\/p>\n
      they have the right to carry luggage of the passengers on the roof of <\/p>\n
      their vehicles.    In all, there are six appeals  and three writ petitions <\/p>\n
      before us, but for the sake of convenience, we will refer to the factual <\/p>\n
      scenario   in   C.A.   No.   1507   of   2007,   as   the   same   dicta   will   also   be <\/p>\n
      applicable to the rest of the matters.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.            The transporters operate tourist vehicles between the States of <\/p>\n
      Karnataka and Maharashtra and have been granted tourist permits by <\/p>\n
      the State Transport Authority of Karnataka under Section 88 of the <\/p>\n
      Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”].  The <\/p>\n
      respondents,   by   their   communication\/circular   dated   15.12.1995  had <\/p>\n
      issued instructions to all the subordinate authorities under the Act to <\/p>\n
      ensure that there was no luggage carried on the roof of the vehicles, <\/p>\n
      as the same was not permissible under law. Due to this instruction, <\/p>\n
      the checking authorities had started imposing and collecting fines to <\/p>\n
      the tune of  `1500\/- for each entry and exit from the transporters for <\/p>\n
      carrying goods on the roof of vehicles with tourist permits. <\/p>\n
                                                                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
4.            Aggrieved   by   this   imposition   and   collection   of   fine,   the <\/p>\n
      transporters preferred a writ petition before the Bombay High Court <\/p>\n
      inter-alia seeking the following relief\/(s):<\/p>\n
                     “i)   Writ   of    Mandamus   or  any  other   appropriate  <\/p>\n
                     Writ, Order or Direction and prohibit the 3rd  and  <\/p>\n
                     4th  Respondents   and   their   sub-ordinate   checking  <\/p>\n
                     officers  from checking, levying and collecting the  <\/p>\n
                     compounding   fee   from   the   vehicles   of   the  <\/p>\n
                     Petitioners   on   the   alleged   offence   of   carriage   of  <\/p>\n
                     goods on the top of the vehicle.<\/p>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                     ii) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other  <\/p>\n
                     appropriate   Writ,   Order,   Direction   and   quash  <\/p>\n
                     memo   receipts   issued   to   several   vehicles   of   the  <\/p>\n
                     Petitioners   vide   Annexure   `C’   produced   in   the  <\/p>\n
                     Writ Petition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                     iii)   A   Writ   in   the   nature   of   Declaration   or   any  <\/p>\n
                     other   appropriate   Writ,   Order   or   Direction   and  <\/p>\n
                     direct   the   Respondent   not   to   levy   and   collect  <\/p>\n
                     illegal compounding fee for carriage of goods on  <\/p>\n
                     the top of the Petitioners vehicles as per the limits  <\/p>\n
                     prescribed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                     iv) Direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to refund the  <\/p>\n
                     compound   fee   already   collected   from   the  <\/p>\n
                     Petitioners.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
5.            The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the <\/p>\n
      writ   petition   holding   that   by   virtue   of   Rule   128   (9)   of   the   Rules, <\/p>\n
      luggage of the passengers could be stored only in the rear and side of <\/p>\n
      the vehicle and not on the roof of the vehicle. The High Court held:<\/p>\n
                                                                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
“15…   The   specifications   are   aimed   at   securing  <\/p>\n
safety   and   security   of   the   passengers   so   also   the  <\/p>\n
luggage   and   thus   the   same   needs   to   be  <\/p>\n
meticulously adhered to. It has been stated in the  <\/p>\n
affidavit in reply that on account of the loading of  <\/p>\n
the   luggage   on   the   roof   of   the   vehicle   in   huge  <\/p>\n
quantities   or   weights,   unevenly   kept,   is   likely   to  <\/p>\n
result in exposing the vehicle to accidents and as  <\/p>\n
such   the   respondents   insistence   in   not   permitting  <\/p>\n
keeping of the luggage on the roof of the vehicles  <\/p>\n
is justified.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  16. Having regard to the language used in sub  <\/p>\n
  rule 9(i) which mandates that the luggage holds  <\/p>\n
  shall be provided at the rear or at the sides or  <\/p>\n
  both, what is intended is exclusion of the making  <\/p>\n
  of   a   provision   for   luggage   holds   at   any   other  <\/p>\n
  place.   Sub   rule   9(i)   is   indicative   of   the  <\/p>\n
  mandatory   nature   of   the   provisions   as   the  <\/p>\n
  phraseology   used   is   “that   the   luggage   holds  <\/p>\n
  shall be provided at the rear or at the sides or  <\/p>\n
  both   of   the   tourist   vehicle…”.   `Shall’   is  <\/p>\n
  ordinarily  used to indicate the provisions to be  <\/p>\n
  mandatory. It is also settled position of law that  <\/p>\n
  if a provisions (sic.) requires a thing to be done  <\/p>\n
  in a particular manner, it has to be so done, or  <\/p>\n
  not at all. When the provision indicate place or  <\/p>\n
  places where luggage holds are to be provided,  <\/p>\n
  by   necessary   implication,   other   places   for  <\/p>\n
  luggage holds stand excluded. In this view of the  <\/p>\n
  matter   we   proceed   to   accept   the   interpretation  <\/p>\n
  of   Rule   128(9)   as   contended   by   the   learned  <\/p>\n
  counsel   for   respondents.   We   are   not   accepting  <\/p>\n
  the   submission   of   the   petitioner   that   in   the  <\/p>\n
  absence   of   a   specific   restriction   in   regard   to  <\/p>\n
  having luggage holds\/carrier on the roof of the  <\/p>\n
  vehicle the petitioners cannot be prevented from  <\/p>\n
  carrying   the   goods\/luggage   on   the   roof   of   the  <\/p>\n
  vehicle. On the contrary we are of the clear view  <\/p>\n
  that   luggage   has   to   be   stored   at   the   places  <\/p>\n
                                                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
                        specifically permitted by sub rule 9(i) viz., at the  <\/p>\n
                        rear or at sides or both, but not the roof of the  <\/p>\n
                        vehicle.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.            The   transporters   are   represented   by   Shri.   Rakesh   Dwivedi, <\/p>\n
      learned   senior   counsel,   and   Ms.   Madhavi   Divan,   learned   counsel <\/p>\n
      appears for the respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.            The   learned   senior   counsel,   Shri.   Rakesh   Dwivedi,   submits <\/p>\n
      that in Rule 128 (9), there is no express bar on carriage of luggage on <\/p>\n
      the   roof   of   the   vehicles.     He   states   that   the   Rule   requires   that   the <\/p>\n
      transporters should provide space for the luggage of the passengers at <\/p>\n
      the rear and the sides of the vehicle, but does not prohibit carrying <\/p>\n
      the luggage on the roof of the vehicle. On the contrary, the learned <\/p>\n
      senior   counsel   states   that   Rule   93,   which   regulates   the   overall <\/p>\n
      dimensions   of   motor   vehicles,   by   virtue   of   Rule   128   (1),   gets <\/p>\n
      incorporated   into   Rule   128.     Shri.   Dwivedi   pointed   out   to   the <\/p>\n
      Explanations   to   sub-Rule   (3)   and   sub-Rule   (3A),   where   it   is <\/p>\n
      expressly  stated  that any  ladder  provided  for  uploading luggage on <\/p>\n
      the roof of a vehicle shall be excluded while calculating the “overall <\/p>\n
      length” of the vehicle. He also refers to sub rule (4), (6A) and (8) of <\/p>\n
      Rule 93.   In view of this, the learned senior counsel would contend <\/p>\n
                                                                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
      that in the absence of an express bar of carrying luggage on the roof <\/p>\n
      of the vehicle, a vehicle could carry luggage on the roof of a vehicle. <\/p>\n
      Shri.   Dwivedi   further   draws   our   attention   to   Rule   125C   and   the <\/p>\n
      Automotive   Industry   Standards   Code   of   Practice   for   Bus   Body <\/p>\n
      Design and Approval (“AIS specification” for short) to contend that <\/p>\n
      there is no express prohibition from carrying luggage on the roof of <\/p>\n
      the vehicle.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.            Summing up the arguments, Shri Dwivedi would urge before <\/p>\n
      us that on a conjoint reading of the Rules, it is clear that there was no <\/p>\n
      prohibition for the transporters to carry luggage of the passengers on <\/p>\n
      the roof of tourist vehicles.   It is also argued that such restriction of <\/p>\n
      carrying the luggage on the roof of a vehicle unreasonably restricts <\/p>\n
      the   right   of   the   transporters   to   carry   on   trade   or   business   which <\/p>\n
      would be violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.  In aid of <\/p>\n
      his   submissions,   Shri   Dwivedi,   learned   senior   counsel,   draws   our <\/p>\n
      attention to a view taken by the Karnataka High Court.  <\/p>\n
9.            Per   contra,   Ms.   Madhavi   Divan,   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
      respondent, states that Rule 128 (9) requires that sufficient space be <\/p>\n
      provided at the rear and\/or the sides of the vehicle. Ms. Divan lays <\/p>\n
                                                                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
emphasis on the phrase “sufficient space and size” and contends that <\/p>\n
the transporter is required compulsorily to provide adequate space for <\/p>\n
the   luggage   of   the   passengers   of   a   tourist   vehicle.   She   states   that <\/p>\n
there is a limit on how much luggage a passenger can carry and such <\/p>\n
luggage   must   be   stored   only   in   the   luggage   compartment   provided <\/p>\n
for   in   accordance   with   Rule   128   (9).     The   learned   counsel   further <\/p>\n
submits that the incorporation of Rule 93 into Rule 128 is only for <\/p>\n
the   purpose   of   complying   with   the   dimensions   of   the   vehicle   laid <\/p>\n
down in that Rule and the reference to the ladder for loading luggage <\/p>\n
on   the   roof   is   only   for   the   purpose   of   excluding   the   length   of   the <\/p>\n
ladder, while calculating  the overall dimensions of the vehicle, and <\/p>\n
does not, in any way, imply that a tourist vehicle may carry luggage <\/p>\n
on the roof of the vehicle.   She further states that Rule 128(9) is a <\/p>\n
special   provision   for   tourist   vehicles   only   and  they   would   override <\/p>\n
any general provision like Rule 93, and that loading any luggage on <\/p>\n
the roof of a vehicle is detrimental to the balance of the vehicle and <\/p>\n
thereby  the safety of the passengers inside the vehicle.   Ms. Divan <\/p>\n
also   states   that   the   transporters   are   duty   bound   by   Rule   128(9)   to <\/p>\n
ensure   that   there   is   sufficient   space   to   house   the   luggage   of   the <\/p>\n
passengers and any plea of placing the extra luggage on the roof of <\/p>\n
                                                                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
       the vehicle due to insufficiency of space in the compartment at the <\/p>\n
       rear   and\/or   sides   of   the   vehicle,   would   itself   be   a   violation   of   the <\/p>\n
       Rule.    By  placing reliance  on case  laws,  the learned  counsel  states <\/p>\n
       that if something is provided for in a particular manner, then it must <\/p>\n
       be done in that manner, or not at all. She further states that there is a <\/p>\n
       clear   distinction   between   luggage   and   goods   as   defined   by   Section <\/p>\n
       2(13) of the Act, and that the real intention of the transporters by this <\/p>\n
       appeal is to carry goods on the roof of the tourist vehicles, as is clear <\/p>\n
       from their prayer in the writ petition before the High Court. <\/p>\n
       Both the learned counsel have cited some case laws before us, which <\/p>\n
       we will deal with, as and when required.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.            The   issue   involved   is   whether   a   transporter   can   provide <\/p>\n
       luggage carriers on the roof of his vehicle.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.            The transporters are the permit holders of the tourist vehicles. <\/p>\n
       The   vehicles   are   registered   as   tourist   vehicles   and   endorsement   is <\/p>\n
       recorded on the Registration Certificate that tourist vehicle complies <\/p>\n
       with all the requirements of Rule 128 of the Rules.  Section 2 of the <\/p>\n
       Act   defines   the   meaning   of   the   expression   `contract   carriage’. <\/p>\n
       Section 2(43) defines the meaning of the expression `tourist vehicle’ <\/p>\n
                                                                                               11<\/span><\/p>\n
to mean a contract carriage, constructed or adapted and equipped and <\/p>\n
maintained   in   accordance   with   such   specifications   as   may   be <\/p>\n
prescribed   in   this   behalf.     Section   110   of   the   Act   authorizes   the <\/p>\n
Central   Government   to   make   rules   regulating   the   construction, <\/p>\n
equipment   and   maintenance   of   motor   vehicles   and   trailers   with <\/p>\n
respect to matters enumerated in Clause (a) to (p) of the Section.  In <\/p>\n
exercise   of   the   power   so   conferred,   the   Central   Government   has <\/p>\n
framed special provisions with respect to tourist vehicles other than <\/p>\n
motor cabs, etc.   Apart from others, it provides for specification for <\/p>\n
dimension and luggage holds for a tourist vehicle.   Rule 128(1), by <\/p>\n
way of incorporation, provides that the dimension of a tourist vehicle <\/p>\n
shall  conform to the dimensions  specified in Rule  93 of the Rules. <\/p>\n
Rule 128(9) provides that the luggage holds shall be provided at the <\/p>\n
rear or at the sides or both, of the tourist vehicle. The relevant portion <\/p>\n
of Rule 93 of the Rules is as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 “Overall dimension<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              93. Overall dimension of motor vehicles.–(1) The  <\/p>\n
              overall width of a motor vehicle, measured at right  <\/p>\n
              angles   to   the   axis   of   the   motor   vehicle   between  <\/p>\n
              perpendicular planes enclosing the extreme points,  <\/p>\n
              134 shall not exceed 2.6 metres.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Explanation.–For   purposes   of   this   rule,   a   rear-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              view mirror, or guard rail or a direction indicator  <\/p>\n
                                                                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
rub-rail   (rubber   beading)   having   maximum  <\/p>\n
thickness of 20 mm on each side of the body shall  <\/p>\n
not   be   taken   into   consideration   in   measuring   the  <\/p>\n
overall width of a motor vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
……\n<\/p>\n
(3)   In   the   case   of   an   articulated   vehicle   or   a  <\/p>\n
tractor-trailer   combination   specially   constructed  <\/p>\n
and used for the conveyance of individual load of  <\/p>\n
exceptional length,–\n<\/p>\n
(i)   if   all   the   wheels   of   the   vehicle   are   fitted   with  <\/p>\n
pneumatic tyres, or<\/p>\n
(ii)   if   all   the   wheels   of   the   vehicle   are   not   fitted  <\/p>\n
with pneumatic tyres, so long as the vehicle is not  <\/p>\n
driven at a speed exceeding twenty-five kilometers  <\/p>\n
per   hour,   the   overall   length   shall   not   exceed   18  <\/p>\n
metres.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.–For   the   purposes   of   this   rule  <\/p>\n
“overall   length”   means   the   length   of   the   vehicle  <\/p>\n
measured between parallel planes passing through  <\/p>\n
the   extreme   projection   points   of   the   vehicle  <\/p>\n
exclusive of–\n<\/p>\n
(i) a starting handle;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) any hood when down;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) any fire-escape fixed to a vehicle;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)  any post office letter-box, the length of which  <\/p>\n
measured parallel to the axis of<\/p>\n
the vehicle, does not exceed 30 centimeters;<\/p>\n
(v) any ladder used for loading or unloading from  <\/p>\n
the roof of the vehicle or any<\/p>\n
tail  or  indicator  lamp or number plate fixed to a  <\/p>\n
vehicle;\n<\/p>\n
(vi)  any   spare   wheel   or   spare   wheel   bracket   or  <\/p>\n
bumper fitted to a vehicle;\n<\/p>\n
                                                                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
           (vii)  any towing hook or other fitment which does  <\/p>\n
           not project beyond any fitment covered by clauses  <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (iii) to (vi).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (3-A)The   overall   length   of   the   construction  <\/p>\n
           equipment vehicle, in travel shall not exceed 12.75  <\/p>\n
           metres:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Provided   that   in   the   case   of   construction  <\/p>\n
           equipment   vehicle   with   more   than   two   axles,   the  <\/p>\n
           length shall not exceed 18 metres.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Explanation.–For   the   purposes   of   this   sub-rule  <\/p>\n
           “overall   length”   means   the   length   of   the   vehicle  <\/p>\n
           measured   between   parallel   planes   through   the  <\/p>\n
           extreme projection points of the vehicle, exclusive  <\/p>\n
           of–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (i) any fire-escape fixed to a vehicle;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (ii)  any   ladder   used   by   the   operator   to   board   or  <\/p>\n
           alight the vehicle;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (iii)  any   tail   or   indicator   lamp   or   number   plate  <\/p>\n
           fixed to a vehicle;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (iv)  any sphere wheel or sphere wheel bracket or  <\/p>\n
           bumper fitted to a vehicle;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (v) any towing hook or other fitments;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (vi)  any   operational   attachment   on  front,   rear   or  <\/p>\n
           carrier   chassis   of   construction   equipment   vehicle  <\/p>\n
           in travel mode.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           ……”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
Rule 128(9) of the Rules is as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “…\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n           (9) Luggage.–(i) Luggage holds shall be provided  <\/p>\n
           at the rear or at the sides, or both, of the tourist  <\/p>\n
           vehicle with sufficient space and size, and shall be  <\/p>\n
           rattleproof,   dustproof   and   waterproof   with   safety  <\/p>\n
           arrangements;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                                                                                  14<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                     (ii)  The   light   luggage   racks,   on   strong   brackets  <\/p>\n
                     shall   be   provided   inside   the   passenger  <\/p>\n
                     compartment running along the sides of the tourist  <\/p>\n
                     vehicle.   Except   where   nylon   netting   is   used,   the  <\/p>\n
                     under   side   of   the   rack   shall   have   padded  <\/p>\n
                     upholstery   to   protect   the   passengers   from   an  <\/p>\n
                     accidental   hit.   The   general   design   and   fitment   of  <\/p>\n
                     the   rack   shall   be   so   designed   as   to   avoid   sharp  <\/p>\n
                     corners and edges.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
12.            Chapter V of the Act relates to control of transport  vehicles. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       Section  66 prescribes  the necessity  of a permit,  without which,  the <\/p>\n
       vehicle  cannot  be  used  in any  public place.     Section  84  deals  with <\/p>\n
       general   conditions   attaching   to   all   permits.     These   conditions   are <\/p>\n
       deemed   to   be   incorporated   in   every   permit.   One   of   the   general <\/p>\n
       conditions is that the vehicle is, at all times, to be so maintained as to <\/p>\n
       comply   with   the   requirements   of   the   Act   and   the   Rules   made <\/p>\n
       thereunder.  The authorities are empowered to cancel or suspend the <\/p>\n
       permit   on   the   breach   of   any   of   the   general   conditions   specified   in <\/p>\n
       Section 84 or any other condition which is contained in the permit. <\/p>\n
       Section   86   of   the   Act   lays   down   the   power   of   cancellation   and <\/p>\n
       suspension of permit and Section  200 of the Act confers power on <\/p>\n
       the   State   Government   that   it   may,   by   notification   in   the   official <\/p>\n
                                                                                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
       gazette, specify the various compounding fees for the breach of the <\/p>\n
       permit conditions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
13.            Rule   128   (9)   is   a   special   provision   meant   for   laying   down <\/p>\n
       specifications   for   a   tourist   vehicle.     The   sub-Rule   specifically <\/p>\n
       provides   that   in   a   tourist   vehicle,   the   permit   holder   should   only <\/p>\n
       provide luggage holds at the rear or at the sides or both, of the tourist <\/p>\n
       vehicle with sufficient space and size.   When the Rules specifically <\/p>\n
       make a provision in regard to the place where luggage holds shall be <\/p>\n
       provided   by   necessary   implication,   it   goes   to   exclude   all   the   other <\/p>\n
       places of the tourist vehicle for being used as luggage holds.  In our <\/p>\n
       view, since the language of the Rule is clear  and unambiguous, no <\/p>\n
       other construction need be resorted to understand the plain language <\/p>\n
       of the sub-Rule (a) of Rule 128 of the Rules.   Rule 128 is a special <\/p>\n
       provision for tourist vehicles which excludes General Rule 93 to the <\/p>\n
       extent of conflict between the former and the later.  <\/p>\n
14.            On a close examination of the argument on the incorporation <\/p>\n
       of Rule 93 into Rule 128, we find that it is not the whole Rule 93 that <\/p>\n
       is incorporated into Rule 128. On a plain reading of Rule 93 (3) and <\/p>\n
       (3A), on which the transporters have heavily relied upon, it is clear <\/p>\n
                                                                                          16<\/span><\/p>\n
       that   these   Sub-Rules   are   not   applicable   to   tourist   vehicles,   as   sub-<\/p>\n
       Rule (3) is applicable  only to  “an articulated vehicle or a tractor-<\/p>\n
       trailer   combination   specially   constructed   and   used   for   the  <\/p>\n
       conveyance   of individual   load  of exceptional  length”  and  sub-Rule <\/p>\n
       (3A)   is   applicable   to  “construction   equipment   vehicle”.   Only   sub-<\/p>\n
       Rule (1) of Rule 93, which is in reference to “a motor vehicle”, will <\/p>\n
       be incorporated and read into Rule 128 by virtue of sub-Rule (1) of <\/p>\n
       Rule 128.   In other words, the effect of Rule 128(1) with regard to <\/p>\n
       the   conformation   to   the   dimensions   specified   in   Rule   93   are <\/p>\n
       applicable  to tourist vehicles  and no other  sub-Rule.  Therefore, we <\/p>\n
       are   not   inclined   to   agree   with   Shri   Dwivedi   that   Rule   93   must   be <\/p>\n
       fully   incorporated   into   Rule   128,   thereby   implying   that   the <\/p>\n
       transporters may load goods on the roof of a tourist vehicle due to the <\/p>\n
       reference to a ladder to upload luggage found in sub-Rules (3) and <\/p>\n
       (3A).   Both these sub rules specifically refer to vehicles that are for <\/p>\n
       the purpose of carrying heavy loads and not for carrying tourists. <\/p>\n
15.            The   cardinal   rule   of   interpretation   is   to   allow   the   general <\/p>\n
       words to take their natural wide meaning unless the language of the <\/p>\n
       Statute gives a different indication of such meaning and is likely to <\/p>\n
       lead to absurd result, in which case their meaning can be restricted by <\/p>\n
                                                                                           17<\/span><\/p>\n
       the application of this rule and they may be required to fall in line <\/p>\n
       with the specific things designated by the preceding  words.   When <\/p>\n
       the language used in the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is the <\/p>\n
       duty of the court to give effect to it.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.           In  Grasim   Industries   Ltd.   v.   Collector   of   Customs,   Bombay,<\/a>  <\/p>\n
       (2002) 4 SCC 297, this Court took the view:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                    “10.  No words or expressions used in any statute  <\/p>\n
                    can   be   said   to   be   redundant   or   superfluous.   In  <\/p>\n
                    matters   of   interpretation   one   should   not  <\/p>\n
                    concentrate   too   much   on   one   word   and   pay   too  <\/p>\n
                    little attention to other words. No provision in the  <\/p>\n
                    statute   and   no   word   in   any   section   can   be  <\/p>\n
                    construed in isolation. Every  provision  and every  <\/p>\n
                    word   must   be   looked   at   generally   and   in   the  <\/p>\n
                    context   in   which   it   is   used.   It   is   said   that   every  <\/p>\n
                    statute   is   an   edict   of   the   legislature.   The  <\/p>\n
                    elementary   principle   of   interpreting   any   word  <\/p>\n
                    while   considering   a  statute  is   to  gather  the  mens  <\/p>\n
                    or   sententia   legis   of   the   legislature.   Where   the  <\/p>\n
                    words   are   clear   and   there   is   no   obscurity,   and  <\/p>\n
                    there   is   no   ambiguity   and   the   intention   of   the  <\/p>\n
                    legislature   is   clearly   conveyed,   there   is   no   scope  <\/p>\n
                    for   the   court   to   take   upon   itself   the   task   of  <\/p>\n
                    amending   or   alternating   the   statutory   provisions.  <\/p>\n
                    Wherever the language is clear the intention of the  <\/p>\n
                    legislature   is   to   be   gathered   from   the   language  <\/p>\n
                    used.   While   doing   so,   what   has   been   said   in   the  <\/p>\n
                    statute   as   also   what   has   not   been   said   has   to   be  <\/p>\n
                    noted.   The   construction   which   requires   for   its  <\/p>\n
                    support addition or substitution of words or which  <\/p>\n
                    results in rejection of words has to be avoided…”<\/p>\n
                                                                                                18<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
17.          In  Bhavnagar   University   v.   Palitana   Sugar   Mill   (P)   Ltd.,<\/a> <\/p>\n
       (2003) 2 SCC 111, this Court held:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                   “24. True meaning of a provision of law has to be  <\/p>\n
                   determined on the basis of what it provides by its  <\/p>\n
                   clear language, with due regard to the scheme of  <\/p>\n
                   law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                   25. Scope of the legislation on the intention of the  <\/p>\n
                   legislature cannot be enlarged when the language  <\/p>\n
                   of   the   provision   is   plain   and   unambiguous.   In  <\/p>\n
                   other  words  statutory   enactments  must  ordinarily  <\/p>\n
                   be   construed   according   to   its   plain   meaning   and  <\/p>\n
                   no   words   shall   be   added,   altered   or   modified  <\/p>\n
                   unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a  <\/p>\n
                   provision   from   being   unintelligible,   absurd,  <\/p>\n
                   unreasonable,            unworkable           or         totally  <\/p>\n
                   irreconcilable with the rest of the statute.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
18.          In   the   case   of       Harshad   S.   Mehta   v.   State   of  <\/p>\n
       Maharashtra,<\/a>(2001) 8 SCC 257, this Court opined:<\/p>\n
                   “34.  There is no doubt that if the words are plain  <\/p>\n
                   and simple and call for only one construction, that  <\/p>\n
                   construction   is   to   be   adopted   whatever   be   its  <\/p>\n
                   effect…”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
19.          In the case of  Union of India v. Hansoli Devi,<\/a>   (2002) 7 SCC <\/p>\n
       273, this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                         19<\/span><\/p>\n
                      “9…It is a cardinal principle of construction of a  <\/p>\n
                      statute   that   when   the   language   of   the   statute   is  <\/p>\n
                      plain  and unambiguous,  then  the court  must  give  <\/p>\n
                      effect to the words used in the statute and it would  <\/p>\n
                      not be open to the courts to adopt a hypothetical  <\/p>\n
                      construction on the ground that such construction  <\/p>\n
                      is   more   consistent   with   the   alleged   object   and  <\/p>\n
                      policy of the Act…”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
20.            In the case of Patangrao Kadam v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav  <\/p>\n
       Deshmukh,<\/a>(2001) 3 SCC 594, this Court took the view:<\/p>\n
                      “12. Thus when there is an ambiguity in terms of a  <\/p>\n
                      provision, one must look at well-settled principles  <\/p>\n
                      of construction but it is not open to first create an  <\/p>\n
                      ambiguity   which   does   not   exist   and   then   try   to  <\/p>\n
                      resolve   the   same   by   taking   recourse   to   some  <\/p>\n
                      general principle.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
21.            In   light   of   the   above,   we   are   not   inclined   to   agree   with   the <\/p>\n
       submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that Rule <\/p>\n
       128 (9) does  not place a prohibition on carrying of luggage on the <\/p>\n
       roof   of   a   tourist   vehicle.     If   that   was   so,   it   would   have   to   be <\/p>\n
       incorporated thus in the bare language of the provision. Since there is <\/p>\n
       no ambiguity in the language of Rule 128 (9), there is no reason for <\/p>\n
       us to read the same into the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                               20<\/span><\/p>\n
22.            In the case of  Taylor v. Taylor, (1875-76) L.R. 1 Ch. D. 426, <\/p>\n
       the   Court   took   a   view   that   if   a   particular   method   is   prescribed   for <\/p>\n
       doing  a certain   thing by  the Statute,   it  rules   out any  other  method. <\/p>\n
       This view has been adopted by the Privy Council in the case of Nazir  <\/p>\n
       Ahmed   v.  King   Emperor,   AIR   1936   PC   253.  By   this   logic,  we   are <\/p>\n
       inclined to accept the argument of Ms. Divan that the luggage of the <\/p>\n
       passengers may only be stored in the compartments provided at the <\/p>\n
       sides   and\/or   at   the   rear   of   the   bus,   as   the   buses   are   mandated   to <\/p>\n
       provide sufficient space for the storage of luggage. <\/p>\n
23.            There   is   another   argument   advanced   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
       transporters   before   us,   who   claim   that   the   prohibition   to   carry <\/p>\n
       luggage   of   the   passengers   on   the   roof   of   the   vehicle   is   an <\/p>\n
       unreasonable restriction and, therefore, violative of Article 19(1)(g) <\/p>\n
       of the Constitution.  In our view, the restriction imposed by the Rule <\/p>\n
       is   a   reasonable   restriction   keeping   in   view   the   safety   of   the <\/p>\n
       passengers in a tourist vehicle.   Therefore, the Rule cannot be said <\/p>\n
       either arbitrary or unreasonable or violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the <\/p>\n
       Constitution.     At  the  time   of hearing  of  the  appeals,   reference  was <\/p>\n
       made to AIS specifications to contend that specification so provided <\/p>\n
       support the interpretation given by the Karnataka High Court to Rule <\/p>\n
                                                                                              21<\/span><\/p>\n
            128(a)   of   the   Rules.     In   our   view,   this   submission   of   the   learned <\/p>\n
            counsel for the appellants has no merit and is, therefore, rejected.<\/p>\n
24.                     In   the   result,   the   appeals   and   writ   petitions   fail.       They   are <\/p>\n
            dismissed.  Costs are made easy.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                              …………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                      [ G. S. SINGHVI ]<\/p>\n
                                                                                                  ………………………\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                     …J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                            [ H. L. DATTU ]<\/p>\n
          New Delhi,<\/p>\n
          August 02, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                       22<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Sharma Transports vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 August, 2011 Author: …J. Bench: G.S. Singhvi, H.L. Dattu REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE\/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1507 OF 2007 M\/s Sharma Transports ………….. Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …………..Respondents WITH CIVIL […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-162490","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Sharma Transports vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Sharma Transports vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-11T07:09:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Sharma Transports vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-11T07:09:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3919,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Sharma Transports vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-11T07:09:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Sharma Transports vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Sharma Transports vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Sharma Transports vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-11T07:09:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Sharma Transports vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-11T07:09:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011"},"wordCount":3919,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011","name":"M\/S Sharma Transports vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-11T07:09:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sharma-transports-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Sharma Transports vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162490","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=162490"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162490\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}