L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) ONE late M. Muralidhar Reddy, the 1st petitioner in W. P. No. 8056 of 2002 was the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP21u 4158 and the said vehicle was engaged in transporting of essential commodities by the civil Supplies Department. The permit of the vehicle was valid till 1-2-2002. On 10-9-2001 he was issued a notice by the secretary, R. T. A. , Kurnool, stating that the vigilance and Enforcement Officials, kurnool through letter dated 7-7-2001 have informed that during the course of transporting the essential commodities for public distribution system, the vehicle carried the load over and above the permitted capacity. On that basis, the owner was required to pay a sum of Rs. 4,28,300. 00 under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as Act ). ( 2 ) HE filed an application for renewal of the permit. The same was rejected by proceedings dated 1-4-2002 on the ground that the amount of Rs. 4,28,300. 00 demanded through notice dated 10-9-2001 was not- paid. He filed W. P. No. 8056 of 2002 challenging the said proceedings. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died and therefore, his Legal Representatives i. e. , petitioners 2 to 5 were brought on record. ( 4 ) SMT. M. Rajeswari, wife of mr. M. Muralidhar Reddy filed an application before the Secretary, R. T. A. , kurnool, for transferring the ownership of the vehicle in her favour in view of the death of Mr. M. Muralidhar Reddy, She was informed through proceedings dt. 3-12-2002 stating that unless the amount of rs, 4,28,300/- is paid, her application cannot be considered. Challenging the same w. P. No. 7187 of 2003 is filed. ( 5 ) SRI K. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there did not exist any basis for demanding a sum of Rs. 4,28,300. 00 According to him, if any vehicle violates the restrictions as to load, the procedure contemplated under section 114 of the Act r/w 286 of A. P. Motor vehicles Rules has to be followed and in this case, such a procedure was not followed at all. According to him, the Vigilance and enforcement Officer of the Civil Supplies department is not conferred with any power, either to inspect or to report any violations as to overloading. According to him, the Vigilance and enforcement Officer of the Civil Supplies department is not conferred with any power, either to inspect or to report any violations as to overloading. Since the only basis for issuing notice dated 10-9-2001 was the so called letter of the Vigilance and enforcement Officer, the learned counsel submits that the whole demand as Weil as the consequential actions are vitiated. ( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader for transport on the other hand submits that the R. T. A. is competent to issue demand notices as and when any violations come to its knowledge. It is also submitted that if the petitioner had any explanation to the show-cause notice or any objections for the demand, he ought to have raised the same at appropriate point of time. ( 7 ) THE orders impugned in both the writ petitions are based on demand of rs. 4,28,300/- through notice dt. 10-9-2001. If the notice can be said to be valid, the consequential actions for non-compliance with the notice or demand therein can certainly be sustained. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether it was competent for the R. T. A. to make a demand as it did through the notice dated 10-9-2001. ( 8 ) THE only basis for demanding of rs. 4,28,300/- was that the Vigilance and enforcement Officer had addressed a letter on 7-7-2001 stating that during the course of transporting the essential commodities to various distribution points, the vehicle of the petitioner was overloaded. In this context, it needs to be noticed that Section 114 of the act prescribes the manner in which any action in the event of any vehicle carrying the load over and above the permitted capacity is to be initiated. The vehicle, suspected to be overloaded is required to be taken to the nearest Weigh Bridge and actual weighment be caused. It reads as under:"114. The vehicle, suspected to be overloaded is required to be taken to the nearest Weigh Bridge and actual weighment be caused. It reads as under:"114. Power to have vehicle weighed:-- any person authorized in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a goods vehicle or trailer is being used in contravention of Section 113, require the driver to convey the vehicle to a weighing device, if any, within a distance of ten kilometres from any point on the forward route or within a distance of twenty kilometres from the destination of the vehicle for weighment; and if on such weighment the vehicles is found to contravene in any respect the provisions of Section 113 regarding weight, he may, by order in writing, direct the driver to off-load the excess weight at his own risk and not to remove the vehicle or trailer from the place until the laden weight has been reduced or the vehicle or trailer has otherwise been dealt with so that it complies with Section 113 and on receipt of such notice, the driver shall comply with such directions. (2) Where the person authorised under sub-section (1) makes the said order in writing, he shall also endorse the relevant details of the overloading on the goods carriage permit and also intimate the fact of such endorsement to the authority which issued that permit. "further steps can be taken only after such exercise. Under Rule 286 of the A. P. Motor vehicle Rules, various authorities who can stop the vehicles for examination of the contents of the vehicle are enlisted. The vigilance and Enforcement Officer of the civil Supplies Department does not find place in this list. Under Section 207 of the act, it is only the Police Officer or other person authorised in this behalf that is conferred with the power to seize and detain the vehicle in the events specified therein. Even here, the Vigilance and Enforcement officer does not find place. Therefore, any finding recorded by any unauthorised officer cannot constitute the basis for the action under the A. P. Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder. ( 9 ) EVEN otherwise, it is evident that the vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Kurnool, who reported the matter has exceeded his limits, in addressing the letter dt. 7-7-2001. Therefore, any finding recorded by any unauthorised officer cannot constitute the basis for the action under the A. P. Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder. ( 9 ) EVEN otherwise, it is evident that the vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Kurnool, who reported the matter has exceeded his limits, in addressing the letter dt. 7-7-2001. This appears to have been done with ulterior motive and for obvious reasons. If, infact, he has found that the vehicle of the petitioner over loaded, either he should have ensured that no such incident takes place or ought to have reported the matter to the R. T. A. , as soon as the incident took place. He had waited till the alleged violations take place entailing liability of several lakhs of rupees and reported the matter to the R. T. A. It is rather unfortunate that the R. T. A. had blindly assessed the compounding fee of rs. 4,28,300/- without himself satisfying as to whether there existed any violations, whether the recording of such violation was done as provided for under Section 114 of the Act, and whether the verification was done by a person authorized for this purpose. No basis is indicated. The compounding fee levied is almost equivalent to, if not more than the value of the vehicle itself. Viewed from any angle, the demand cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) GOING a step further, the R. T. A. refuses to renew the permit and transfer the ownership on the ground that the demanded amount was not paid. In view of the fact that the very demand was contrary to law, all the consequential steps also cannot be sustained. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The R. T. A. is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for transfer of ownership and renewal of permit in accordance with law, without insisting on payment of the amount demanded under notice dated 10-9-20. 01. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The R. T. A. is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for transfer of ownership and renewal of permit in accordance with law, without insisting on payment of the amount demanded under notice dated 10-9-20. 01. ( 12 ) IT is further made clear that, in case there are any instances of the vehicle of the petitioner having been overloaded and such a finding is recorded in accordance with the procedure stipulated under the Act and the rules made thereunder, it shall be open to the R. T. A. to issue notice to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of renewal of the permit and the date of registration. The petitioners shall not transfer the vehicle in the name of any other person for a period of two months. If no notice is issued in this regard, it is open for the petitioners to transfer the vehicle, if they want.