IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8832 of 2025 ====================================================== Satish Kumar Son of Ramnarayan Singh Resident of Village-Chhap, P.S.- Paroo, District-Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary of Transport Department, Government of Bihar. 2. The District Transport Officer, Patna. 3. The District Officer, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (20) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-08-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- “(i) For issuance of an order or orders, direction/directions, writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari, set aside the Challan No:- BR234594250322000342, Dated 22.03.2025, whereby the Transport Officer Muzaffarpur fined Rs. 82,000/- (Eighty two thousand), to the owner of the truck bearing BR06GF9093, due to over loading and lack of permit. (ii) For issuance of an order or orders, direction/ directions, writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent concern to accept the fine imposed to the owner of the above mentioned truck bearing Registration No:- BR06GF9093, on 20.03.2025 for the same offence by the Transport Officer Patna High Court CWJC No.8832 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025 2/5 Patna, vice Challan No:- BR235030250320164245, whereby fined of Rs. 54,500/- (Fifty four thousand five hundred) (iii) For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is owner of truck bearing No. BR06GF9093 and that the driver of the petitioner was transporting the 1000 bags of cement from Shree Cement Ltd. Aurangabad and proceeding towards Sheohar. However, the truck was initially stopped by the Transport Authorities at NH 139 at Naubatpur and having found that the truck of the petitioner was overloaded with the cement bags have issued a challan of Rs. 54,500/-. Thereafter, the petitioner was proceeding towards his final destination Sheohar and at another check point at Muzaffarpur, the Transport Officer concerned has again issued a challan amounting to Rs. 82,000/- against the petitioner on the very same charges. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner cannot be subjected to punishment twice for the same offence. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner having started from Aurangabad has to reach his final destination at Sheohar and once the authorities having found that the truck of the Patna High Court CWJC No.8832 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025 3/5 petitioner is overloaded and issued the challan cannot again issue another challan for the very same offence. That imposing two challans of Rs. 54,500/- & 82,000/- for the very same offence is onerous and the petitioner will be financially ruined if one of the challans is not set aside. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to set aside the impugned challans dated 20.03.2025 for Rs. 54,500/- & 22.03.2025 for Rs. 82,000/- and allow the present writ petition. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- Transport Authority has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has stated that admittedly in this particular case, the truck of the petitioner was overloaded and on inspection by the concerned authority at Naubatpur, it was found that the truck of the petitioner was overloaded and the permit was not there and, therefore, a challan was issued imposing a fine of Rs. 54,500/-. That the petitioner instead of unloading the excess quantity of cement has embarked on the further journey and on inspection at Muzaffarpur, it was found that the truck of the petitioner was overloaded and the officer concerned has issued another challan for a sum of Rs. 82,000/-. Learned counsel has stated that once the petitioner was challaned, he ought to have unloaded the excess quantity of Patna High Court CWJC No.8832 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025 4/5 cement and then embarked on his onward journey. However, in this case, the petitioner has failed to do so. Learned counsel has stated that the argument put forth by the petitioner that he cannot be fined at two places for the very same offence is without any legal basis. Learned counsel has stated that the violation of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 would entitle the Transport Officer to impose fine by way of challans. That the authority having found that the truck of the petitioner is overloaded have rightly issued the challans imposing fine. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition. 6. The facts in this particular case are not disputed. Admittedly, the petitioner has started from Aurangabad with a load of 1000 bags of cement to Sheohar. The final destination being at Sheohar. 7. Admittedly, the initial checking took place at NH 139 at Naubatpur where the concerned authority having found that the truck of the petitioner was overloaded has issued a challan dated 20.03.2025 for an amount of Rs. 54,500/-. The petitioner instead of unloading the excess bags of cement has continued on his onward journey and was challaned at Muzaffarpur again where the authority on inspection has found that the truck of the petitioner was overloaded has issued challan dated 22.03.2025 for Rs. Patna High Court CWJC No.8832 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025 5/5 82,000/-. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be subjected to challan twice for the very same crime or violation is without any legal basis. The authorities have every right to challan any person who has violated the law. The petitioner was legally obligated to unload the truck after the first challan was issued at Naubatpur but for reasons best known to him he has continued on the onward journey to Sheohar without unloading the truck. 8. This Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition which warrants any interference by this Court. The present writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Ayush/- (A. Abhishek Reddy, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 29.08.2025. Transmission Date NA