JUDGMENT H.P. SANDESH, J. 1. This matter has come up before this Court for final hearing today and this matter was also listed on 4.1.2019. The petitioners' counsel did not turn up and hence in order to give an opportunity to the petitioners, this matter was ordered to be listed today. Today also the petitioners' counsel is not present and hence the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioners by invoking the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and under section 482 of Cr.P.C., filed this petition praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned order dated 16.6.2008 bearing No.DCB/MAG-1/Cr.P.C.-514/2007-08 passed by the 2nd respondent/the District Magistrate Uttara Kannada, vide Annexure-B and also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the order dated 31.10.2009 bearing No.DCB/MAG-1/ V-VA-17/09-10 passed by respondent No.3 Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners also sought a writ in the nature of certiorari declaring that the notifications Annexures-B and C are applicable only in respect of transportation of the stacking, handling, exporting, etc., of iron ore in Uttara Kannada district, but not in respect of other goods. The petitioners also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned notice dated 6.8.2014 bearing No.SaPraSaAa/Ho/ UK/14-15 passed by respondent No.5, vide Annexure-H and to issue such other suitable order as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. The petitioners in the petition have contended that the 1st petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing No.MH-43/E-6953 and the petitioner No.2 is the driver of the said vehicle. The petitioner No.1 was engaged in transporting the goods i .e., Net Cock (Coke) from Mangaluru to Koppal on hire basis by using his truck and the said truck passed through Karwar district. The District Magistrate on 16.6.2008 passed an order exercising the powers under section 133 of Cr.P.C., in respect of 10 owners of trucks indicated in the order Annexure-B, wherein the said owners were transporting iron ore and when loaded trucks were intercepted, it was found that there was an overloading of the iron ore. Under those circumstances, the 2nd respondent District Magistrate initiated proceedings under section 133 of Cr.P.C. for regulating the transportation, stacking, handling, exporting, etc. Under those circumstances, the 2nd respondent District Magistrate initiated proceedings under section 133 of Cr.P.C. for regulating the transportation, stacking, handling, exporting, etc. , ofiron ore in Uttara Kannada district and thereafter the District Magistrate passed an order that if the trucks are overloaded with iron ore, the authorities should impose a penalty of Rs.42,000/-. It is further contended that as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, sections 113 to 115 deals with limits of weight, limitation on use and power to restrict the use of the vehicle, read with section 194 of said Act, imposed condition that whoever drives the vehicle or causes or allows the vehicle to be driven in contravention of the above said provisions, a penalty of Rs.2,000/- is imposable, in addition to that, an amount of Rs.1,000/- per ton of excess load. 4. Basing on these provisions, a notification is issued on 3.7.2000 and on reading Annexures-B and C, makes it abundantly clear that the said orders have been passed keeping in mind the regulating of transportation, stacking, handling, exporting, etc., ofiron ore in Uttara Kannada district. The petitioners herein requested the authorities and they are willing to compound the offence, as per the notification vide Annexure- D, wherein it is indicated that as per section 133 read with section 114 read with section 194 of the M.V. Act, the petitioners are willing to pay penalty of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- for every ton of overload and respondent authorities did not heed to the request of the petitioners and questioned to pay the amount of Rs.42,000/-. If the amount is deposited, then only they are going to release the vehicle and hence the very order impugned passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexures-B and C are illegal and hence this Court has to set aside the same. 5. The grounds urged in the petition is that plain reading of Annexures-B and C makes it abundantly clear that the District Magistrate has issued these two orders so as to regulate the transportation, stacking, handling, exporting etc. , of the iron ore in Uttara Kannada district and 10 trucks involved in the transportation where also overloaded with iron ore and the notifications vide Annexures-B and C are applicable only in respect of the iron ore and not in respect of other goods transported by the petitioners. , of the iron ore in Uttara Kannada district and 10 trucks involved in the transportation where also overloaded with iron ore and the notifications vide Annexures-B and C are applicable only in respect of the iron ore and not in respect of other goods transported by the petitioners. Apart from this, the field is already covered under the provisions of M.V. Act section 133 read with section 114 read with section 194 read with notification vide Annexure-D. Such being the case, the respondents are duty bound to obey the said notification and collect the penalty in terms of the notification and cannot insist for payment of Rs.42,000/- and hence the very impugned orders are wholly illegal, arbitrary and the same has to be quashed. 6. The petitioners' counsel is not present today to address his arguments. 7. The Addl. SPP in his arguments he contends that the petitioners have not only sought for quashing of Annexures-B and C and also sought for quashing of Annexure-H issued by respondent No.5 and Annexure-H is only a show cause notice and no reply is given to the said show cause notice and the said show cause notice is issued in terms of the order passed by the Uttara Kannada district Commissioner and this show cause notice is issued by the Regional Transport Officer and instead of giving a reply, the petitioners have approached this Court to quash the order and hence the petitioners cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction and prayed this Court to dismiss the petition. 8. The main contention of the petitioners before this Court is that, they are ready to pay the fine as per section 133 read with section 114 read with section 194 of M.V. Act for an amount of Rs.2,000/- for having carried overload and Rs.1,000/- for every thousand kilograms of overload or part thereof with regard to the excess load shall be allowed and they allow the vehicles to proceed in terms of Annexure-D. The respondent authorities cannot impose penalty of Rs.42,000/- if the trucks are overloaded with the iron ore more than the permissible limit. The petitioners have also relied upon the order dated 16.6.2008 vide Annexure-B and Annexure-C dated 31.10.2009 and these are the orders passed by the Deputy commissioner of Uttara Kannada to recover the amount of Rs.42,000/-; in pursuance of the said order, Annexure-H is issued by the Regional Transport Officer. 9. The petitioners have also relied upon the order dated 16.6.2008 vide Annexure-B and Annexure-C dated 31.10.2009 and these are the orders passed by the Deputy commissioner of Uttara Kannada to recover the amount of Rs.42,000/-; in pursuance of the said order, Annexure-H is issued by the Regional Transport Officer. 9. The claim of the petitioners that they are ready to pay the fine amount in terms of Annexure-D. The counsel also relied upon a judgment of this Court, which is referred as Annexure-F, passed in W.P.Nos.107545-546 of 2014, 107600, 107601, 107602 and 107610 of 2014, and contend that this Court considering the order dated 16.6.2008, disposed of the writ petitions directing to reply to the show cause notice within a period of one week from the date of the order. Further direction was given to the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the reply made to the show cause notice as per the notification Annexure-D dated 3.7.2000, passed under section 300 of the M.V. Act. The respondents are further directed that if it is found that seizure of the vehicle is made in pursuance of Annexure-E and E.1 or the show cause notice issued by the respondents, steps be taken for releasing the vehicle as per the notification referred above, the petitioners are permitted to make out the grounds which are available as per notification and bring all particulars to the notice of the 5th respondent Assistant Regional Transport Officer in order to enable him to pass appropriate orders. With that observation the petitions were disposed of. If the petitioners submit their reply to the show cause notice within one week from today, the respondents are directed to comply with the order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the reply made to the show cause notice as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one week thereafter. 10. If the petitioners submit their reply to the show cause notice within one week from today, the respondents are directed to comply with the order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the reply made to the show cause notice as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one week thereafter. 10. For having considered that this Court has already considered the similar matter in the above writ petitions and the very contention of the petitioners before this Court that they are ready to pay the amount in terms of Annexure-D and the order passed by the respondent authorities in terms of Annexures-A and B is not sustainable and in order to enforce the order in terms of Annexures-A and B, the show cause notice was issued by the respondent No.5 i.e. , Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Honnavar, and when this Court has given the direction, to give a reply to the show cause notice, and dispose of the petitions which are similar in nature, this Court is of the view that this petition also can be disposed of with the very same direction, directing to give reply to the show cause notice within a period of one week from today. The respondents have to examine the cases of each of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders as per notification Annexure-D dated 3.7.2000. The petitioners are permitted to make out the very grounds which are available as per the notification and bring all particulars to the notice of the 5th respondent in order to enable him to pass appropriate orders. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. 11. If the petitioners submit their reply to the notice, within two weeks from today, the respondents are directed to comply with the same, in accordance with law and the reply made to the show cause notice, by giving an opportunity to these petitioners, as expeditiously as possible not later than 15 days thereafter.