The petitioner is concerned with the transport of paints, which goods the petitioner is dealing with. The petitioner's submission is that the petitioner is not liable to be penalised under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the MV Act'), merely on the allegation that the vehicles of the petitioner are found loaded with paints. The petitioner's contention is that paints are not included under any of the Tables as provided under Rule 92 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and hence would not be a hazardous material and in any event, the paints dealt with by the petitioner are water based and not oil based. 2. The learned Government Pleader specifically points out that, the relief prayed for by the petitioner is a blanket declaration; on an apprehension that the petitioner's vehicle would be penalised. As a pre-emptive measure to avoid inspection of the vehicles the writ petition is filed. There is not even one single instance of penalisation pointed out in the writ petition. It is also pointed out that “paint” would be a corrosive substance coming within the definition of hazardous goods as provided under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
3. Chapter V of the Central Motors Vehicles Rules deals with, 'Construction, Equipment and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles'. Under sub-rule (c) of Rule 91 “dangerous or hazardous goods”, are defined as goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life specified in Tables I,II and III to rule 137. Rule 137 deals with class labels, specifying the labels, which are to be fixed in vehicles carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. Tables I notices the Class Labels. Table II provides indicative criteria; which by paragraph H defines “corrosive substances as substances which by chemical action will cause severe damage when in contact with living tissue or in the case of leakage will materially damage or even destroy other goods or the means of transport. They may also cause other hazards”.
Table III provides the list of hazardous goods, which by item No.1602 includes “paint or paint related materials”, which is classified as a corrosive substance, by indicating the alphabet 'C' along with the entry.
4. In such circumstance, the exclusion of paint from the list as contended by the petitioner cannot be countenanced. The petitioner's further contention that, the petitioner is manufacturing and marketing water based paints also is unsustainable, since the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules does not distinguish between paints as; water based and oil based. It is also evident from the averments in the writ petition that the same is filed as a pre-emptive measure to interdict the respondent authorities from inspecting the vehicles to ensure compliance of the MV Act and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. Not a single instance of penalisation is referred to and it is not clear as to how Section 192 of the Act is attracted. In any event, any penalisation effected under the Act ought to be assailed before the appropriate authority provided under the Statute, and no declaration can be sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; to be absolved of the liabilities incurred under the statute.
5. Further the specific contention of the petitioner, as revealed form the averments, is that the contract carriage of the petitioner, 'loaded with paint' are not liable to be penalised under the Act. 'Contract Carriage' as defined under sub-section (7) of Section 2 of the Act is a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward. No goods could be carried in 'Contract Carriages' and that itself would lead to the commission of an offence under the Act.
For all the above reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A To Judge.