Judgment : (Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ.) WAMP.No.271 of 2014 is filed to grant leave to the petitioner to file writ appeal against the order dated 31.12.2012 of the learned Trial Judge in W.P.No.40356 of 2012. Leave granted to prefer appeal to the petitioner, who is the Lorry Owner's Association, as we are absolutely satisfied that this association was seriously prejudiced and affected by the impugned judgment and order. We take up this appeal for final hearing today itself, as all the parties agree to. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.12.2012 by which the learned Trial Judge directed the respondent to release the seized vehicle upon realization of penalty amount @ Rs.1,000/- per tonne in case of overloading up to 15% of maximum capacity and beyond this @ Rs.2,000/- per tonne. While disposing of the matter interpreting Section 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (for short, "the Act"), His Lordship has laid down principle of applying above section. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it appears to us that the learned Trial Judge has taken the role of legislator and adjudicator. His Lordship by the impugned judgment and order has substituted so to say the existing penal provision, namely; Section 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under: "194. Driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight:- (1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Section 113 or Section 114 or Section 115 shall be punishable with minimum fine of two thousand rupees and an additional amount of one thousand rupees per tonne of excess load, together with the liability to pay charges for off-loading of the excess load. (2) Any driver of a vehicle who refuses to stop and submit his vehicle to weighing after being directed to do so by an officer authorized in this behalf under Section 114 or removes or causes the removal of the load or part of it prior to weighing shall be punishable with find which may extend to three thousand rupees." We are of the view that the learned Trial Judge has no jurisdiction to make modified penal provision what legislature has not done. To put it differently the Court has got no power of legislation under the Constitution. To put it differently the Court has got no power of legislation under the Constitution. Such an exercise is fraught with concept of separation of power which is again basic structure of the Constitution (see Kesavananda vs. State of Kerala ( AIR 1973 SC 1461 ). Further, it appears that the learned Trial Judge has also passed an omnibus and general order and to be followed in all cases the amount of punishment levied without leaving the same for imposition by the learned Magistrate. This, in our view, cannot be done by the Court for it is simply worst case of illegal usurpation of power of the Court of first instance. Each and every individual case has to be dealt with according to its own merit and this has to be done by the Court alone as mentioned in the Act at the first instance. At the first instance, the writ Court has no such power and such exercise of power, in our view, would be without jurisdiction and non-est. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained for a single moment. We therefore set aside the same. It is recorded in the impugned order that the said order has been circulated to all the Judicial Magistrates of First Class in the State for compliance. It is submitted by the learned lawyer for the petitioner-appellant that following this order the First Class Magistrates are imposing punishment uniformly. We, therefore, direct the registry with a quickest mode of communication to circulate forthwith this order to all concerned including all the Judicial Magistrates of First Class in the State. We make it clear that the learned Judicial Magistrates of First Class will proceed in accordance with law, as each and every individual case as warranted. We also make it clear that it would be open for the appropriate Legislature to make any amendment, if so advised, with regard to the quantum of punishment. We clarify that if this order is accepted by the writ petitioner, then this judgment will not be applicable to him. punishment. We clarify that if this order is accepted by the writ petitioner, then this judgment will not be applicable to him. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There is no order as to costs.