ORDER : Biswajit Mohanty, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 6.12.2007 under Annexure-3 by which the Regional Transport Officer, Sambalpur (opp. party No. 2) has directed the petitioner in its earlier form to deposit a fine of Rs. 13,46,80,527/- as the vehicles used by it were overloaded during the period April 2007 to July, 2007. 2. The petitioner was earlier known as M/s. Avian Overseas Pvt. Ltd. The case of the petitioner is that it operated a number of trailers transporting coals from different coal mines. A show cause was issued to the petitioner in its earlier form on 29.8.2007 vide Annexure-1 under Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short “the Act” as to why the Registration Certificates of 14 vehicles belonging to it, whose details were indicated therein should not be suspended for carrying over load. After receipt of the above noted show cause under Annexure-1, the petitioner in its earlier form submitted a petition before opp. party No. 2 praying for grant of time to submit the reply. Accordingly, on 14.9.2007 vide Annexure-2, time was granted time till 20.9.2007 for filing reply. Since the petitioner was unable to file reply on 20.9.2007 due to non-availability of relevant records, on the same date, another petition was filed for one month's time to file reply. Such prayer was partly allowed and the matter was posted to 1.10.2007 for filing show cause. On 1.10.2007, another petition for time was filed. However, on 11.10.2007, the opp. party No. 2 suspended the registration certificates of 14 vehicles which have been indicated under Annexure-1 on the ground of overloading. Being aggrieved by the above noted order of suspension, an appeal was filed under Section 57 of “the Act” before the Collector, Sambalpur which was numbered as M.V. Appeal No. 03 of 2007. On 17.10.2007, the appellate authority granted a conditional stay order and challenging such conditional stay order dated 17.10.2007, W.P. (C) No. 13317 of 2007 was filed. During pendency of the said writ application, the impugned order dated 6.12.2007 under Annexure-3 was issued imposing a fine of Rs. 13,46,80,527/- by opp. party No. 2. Challenging the same, the present writ application has been filed. Though several opportunities were given to opp. parties to file their counter, however no counter has been filed. 3. Mr. During pendency of the said writ application, the impugned order dated 6.12.2007 under Annexure-3 was issued imposing a fine of Rs. 13,46,80,527/- by opp. party No. 2. Challenging the same, the present writ application has been filed. Though several opportunities were given to opp. parties to file their counter, however no counter has been filed. 3. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty learned senior Counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the order under Annexure-3 is legally vulnerable as the same has been passed ignoring the provisions of Sections 113, 114 and 194 of “the Act”. In this context, he submitted that as per Section 114 of “the Act” only an authorized officer of motor vehicle department is authorized to get the vehicle weighed. Impugned order under Annexure-3 nowhere shows any such weighment by such authorized officer. Rather it refers to weighment figures as supplied by Deputy Director of Mines. Therefore, the order under Annexure-3 has been issued without following the provisions of law. He submitted that when law prescribes a particular thing is to be done in a particular way, the same should be done in that manner/way or not at all. In this context, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Babaria and another v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 502 . Secondly, he submitted that no penal proceeding was ever initiated under Section 194 read with Section 114 of “the Act” against the petitioner before any competent court. He further submitted that Section 194 occurs under Chapter XIII of “the Act” which deals with “Offences, Penalties and Procedure” and the same provides for punishment for driving a motor vehicle in contravention of Sections 113, 114 and 115 of “the Act”. Prior to imposition of fine under Section 114 of “the Act” on the ground of overloading, the authority should have taken recourse to the provisions contained under Chapter-XIII of “the Act” but that has not been done in the present case. In this context, he referred to Section 208 of “the Act” and contended that since Chapter-XIII of “the Act” is a complete Code dealing with offences, penalties and procedure, the authorities were duty bound to follow the procedure prescribed therein before punishing the petitioner by way of imposing fine. In this context, he referred to Section 208 of “the Act” and contended that since Chapter-XIII of “the Act” is a complete Code dealing with offences, penalties and procedure, the authorities were duty bound to follow the procedure prescribed therein before punishing the petitioner by way of imposing fine. Imposition of fine under Section 194 of “the Act” comes under the province of a competent Court as referred to in Section 208 of “the Act” and not by any other administrative authority. Therefore, imposition of fine with regard to overloading is permissible only after a trial is held. In other words, he contended that fine cannot be imposed by a Regional Transport Officer without any trial. On this background, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Transport stoutly defended the impugned order under Annexure-3. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is undisputed fact that the impugned order under Annexure-3 has been passed by the R.T.O., Sambalpur relying on figures furnished by the Deputy Director of Mines with regard to overloading of the vehicles covering the period April, 2007 to July, 2007. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the parties, it would be appropriate for this Court to refer to the following relevant provisions of “the Act”, viz., Sections, 113, 114, 194 and 208. “113. Limits of weight and limitations on use - (1) The State Government may prescribe the conditions for the issue of permits for [transport vehicles] by the State or Regional Transport Authorities and may prohibit or restrict the use of such vehicle in any area or route. (2) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, no person shall drive or cause or allow to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle which is not fitted with pneumatic tyres. (3) No person shall drive or cause or allow to be driven any public place any motor vehicle or trailer- (a) the unladen weight of which exceeds the unladen weight specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, or (b) the laden weight of which exceeds the gross vehicle weight specified in the certificate of registration. (3) No person shall drive or cause or allow to be driven any public place any motor vehicle or trailer- (a) the unladen weight of which exceeds the unladen weight specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, or (b) the laden weight of which exceeds the gross vehicle weight specified in the certificate of registration. (4) Where the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer driven in contravention of sub-section (2) of Clause (a) of subsection (3) is not the owner, a Court may presume that the offence was committed with the knowledge of or under the orders of the owner of the motor vehicle or trailer. 114. Power to have vehicle weighed - (1) Any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department authorized in this behalf by the State Government shall, 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 nay, within a distance of ten kilometers from any point on the forward route or within a distance of twenty kilometers from the destination of the vehicle for weighment; and if on such weighment the vehicle 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 that 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 authorized under subsection (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. 194. (2) Where the person authorized under subsection (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. 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 its prior to weighing shall be punishable with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees. 208. Summary disposal of cases - (1) The Court taking cognizance of any offence (other than an offence which the Central Government may by rules specify in this behalf) under this Act- (i) may, if the offence is an offence punishable with imprisonment under this Act; and (ii) shall in any other case, state upon the summons to be served on the accused person that he- (a) may appear by pleader or in person; or (b) may, by a specified date prior to the hearing of the charge, plead guilty to the charge and remit to the Court, by money order, such sum (not exceeding the maximum fine that may be imposed for the offence) as the Court may specify, and the plea of guilt indicated in the money order coupon itself: Provided that the Court shall, in the case of any of the offence referred to in sub-section (2) State upon the summons that the accused person, if he pleads guilty shall so plead in the manner specified in clause (b) and shall forward his driving licence to the Court with his letter containing such plea. (2) Where the offence dealt with in accordance with sub-section (1) is an offence specified by the Central Government by rules for the purpose of this sub-section the Court shall, if the accused person pleads guilty to the charge and forward his driving licence to the Court with the letter containing his plea, make an endorsement of such conviction on his driving licence. (3) Where an accused person pleads guilty and remits the sum specified and has complied with the provisions of sub-section (1) or as the case may be, sub-sections (1) and (2), no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against him nor shall he be liable, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence by reason of his having pleaded guilty.” 7. Undisputedly, the present case involves the issue of overloading of vehicles. Section 113 of “the Act” deals with limits of weight and limitations on use of vehicles. Sub-section (3) of Section 113 of “the Act” makes it clear that no person shall drive or cause or allow to be driven any motor vehicle or trailer in public place, the unladen weight of which exceeds the unladen weight specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle or the laden weight of which exceeds the gross vehicle weight specified in the certificate of registration. Section 114 of “the Act”, inter alia, provides the power to get a vehicle weighed. The said Section makes it clear that only the authorized officer of Motor Vehicle Department can get a vehicle weighed if he has reason to believe that a goods vehicle or trailer is being used in contravention of Section 113 of “the Act” and if on such weighment the vehicle is found to contravene the provisions of Section 113 regarding weight, such authorized officer of Motor Vehicle Department may inter alia direct the driver to off-load the excess weight at his own risk. Therefore, prior to imposing fine where the issue relates to overloading, the authorities are required to strictly follow the requirements of Sections 113 and 114 of “the Act”. Here in the present case, a reading of the impugned order under Annexure-3 would show that there is no whisper of any weighment being done by any authorized officer of Motor Vehicle Department. Here in the present case, a reading of the impugned order under Annexure-3 would show that there is no whisper of any weighment being done by any authorized officer of Motor Vehicle Department. Rather relying on the weighment figures furnished by the Deputy Director of Mines, Sambalpur, a conclusion relating over-loading has been drawn and fine amount has been imposed by the R.T.O. Thus the prescribed procedure has not been followed in the matter or weighment. The decision of Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Babaria and another ( AIR 2014 SC 1792 ) (supra) makes it clear that when a procedure has been prescribed to do a thing in a certain way, it should be done in that way/manner or not at all. Para 61 of the judgment which is quoted below makes the same clear. “61. It is well settled that where the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. This proposition of law laid down in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426) was first adopted by the Judicial Committee in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 and then followed by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322 . This proposition was further explained in para 8 of State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 by a Bench of three Judges in the following words (AIR p. 361). “8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted.” This proposition has been later on reiterated in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad, AIR 1999 SC 3558 ; Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka AIR 2001 SC 1512 and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. AIR 2008 SC 1921 . Here, the mandate of Section 114 of “the Act” has not been followed in weighing the vehicles in order to arrive at a conclusion that the vehicles were overloaded. This makes Annexure-3 legally vulnerable. Besides, a perusal of Chapter-XIII of “the Act” makes it clear that the said Chapter deals with Offences, Penalties and Procedure for imposing various penalties. Sections 208, 209 and 210 of “the Act” deal with the procedural aspect of the matter. As indicated earlier, the penal provision of Section 194 of “the Act” occurs in the said Chapter. Section 208 of “the Act” clearly envisages summary trial/disposal of the cases. For such trial, provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short, “Cr.P.C.” are clearly applicable as per sub-section (2) of Section 4 of “Cr.P.C”. Thus, for trial of offences delineated under Chapter-XIII of “the Act”; Chapter-XXI and Part-II of First Schedule of “Cr.P.C.” clearly apply. Section 194 of “the Act” as quoted above clearly deals with offences involving contravention of the provisions of Sections 113, 114, and 115 of “the Act” and also deals with the quantum of punishment by way of imposition of fine and other charges. Therefore, fine can only be imposed by a competent court after a person has undergone trial before a competent court and not otherwise. Therefore before imposing fine on the ground of overloading, the petitioner in its erstwhile incarnation should have been put to trial in accordance with procedure of “the Act” as well as the “Cr.P.C.”. This having not been done, the imposition of fine by an administrative authority under Annexure-3 was clearly not permissible. 8. For all these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that Annexure-3 being a product of illegal exercise of power is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The writ application is accordingly allowed.