Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
State of M.P. and Others – Appellants
Versus
Rakesh Sethi and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7074 of 2008
Decided On : 26-08-2020
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 41, 65 and 211 – Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 – Rules 50 and 51 – Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (Framed by Madhya Pradesh State) – Rule 55A – Allotment of registration number – Rejection of application for non-payment of required fee prescribed for allotment of number – Power of State to claim or charge amounts is specifically recognized by express provisions – There are certain services and functions for which State is empowered to levy fees – Assignment of numbers by registering authority through an official/agency or department notified by State Government, cannot be seen as a mere step at fag-end of registration allotment process – State is entitled to indicate its choice or manner of assigning by prescribing a particular set of procedures for assignment of numbers – In addition to charging such fees, registering authority is enjoined by Rule 55A(2) to follow principle of first-come-first-serve in reserving particular numbers and to allot registration mark reserved upon production of vehicle along with application in Form-20 of Central Rules, provided vehicle is compliant with provisions of Act and Rules – By Rule 55A(d), reservation of mark would be cancelled if vehicle is not produced for allotment within three months from date of allotment – State Government has authority to prescribe fee for reserving certain numbers or distinguishing marks to be assigned as registration numbers – It has not been shown how setting apart of or reservation of some numbers is per se arbitrary or unreasonable – Assignment of distinctive marks i.e. registration numbers to motor vehicles which includes power to reserve and allocate them, for a specific fee is a distinct service for which States or their authorities such as registering authorities, are entitled to charge a prescribed fee – Rule 55A of MP Rules is not in excess of powers conferred upon State, by the Act or the Central Rules – Rule 55A) was within ambit of powers delegated to State and directly related to performance of its functions under Section 41(6), for which it could legitimately claim a fee as was done through Rule 55A – Impugned judgment set aside. (Paras 29, 30, 31, 33, 39, 40 and 42)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal challenges a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which quashed Rule 55A of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 framed by the Madhya Pradesh State and published by it. The respondent Vehicle owner) had approached the High Court, contending that the said rule was ultra vires the state’s power under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The High Court accepted his contentions.
Findings of Court:
In addition to charging such fees, the registering authority is enjoined by Rule 55A(2) to follow the principle of first-come-first-serve in reserving particular numbers; and to allot the registration mark reserved upon production of the vehicle along with the application in Form-20 (of the Central Rules), provided the vehicle is compliant with the provisions of the Act and Rules. By Rule 55A(d), the reservation of the mark would be cancelled if the vehicle is not produced for allotment within three months from the date of allotment. Obviously, this is meant to avoid abuse of the reservation process by trafficking in numbers, by providing finite time within which such numbers can be used.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. This appeal challenges a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which quashed Rule 55A of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereafter “the State Rules”) framed by the Madhya Pradesh State (hereafter “the state”) and published by it. The respondent (hereafter “the vehicle owner”) had approached the High Court, contending that the said rule was ultra-vires the states power under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter “the Act”) and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereafter “the Central Rules”). The High Court accepted his contentions.
2. The vehicle owner purchased the motorcycle in May, 2004 and applied for its registration on 25-05-2004 before the concerned registering authority, through the prescribed application in Form No. 20. By an order (of 27-05-2004), the registering authority rejected the application, stating that the vehicle owner’s claim for allotment of registration number MP-KL-4646 could not be accepted, as the petitioner had not paid the required fee prescribed for allotment of that number. The motorcycle was allotted another number (MP-20-KL-5100) which the petitioner did not want. He therefore, approached the High Court in writ proceedings, contending that allotment of a particular number on payment of a fee (provided in Rule 55A) was contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 41 and the powers conferred on the State Government to frame rules under Section 65 of the Act of 1988. He challenged the amendment incorporated in the State Rules of 1994 by a notification dated 15.02.2001. He also sought a direction to the registration authority that he should be assigned the number 4646 for his motorcycle. Under Rule 55A, this number was reserved by the State to be assigned by a separate procedure. The Rules, particularly Rule 55A prescribed not only the procedure but also a special fee for assigning such reserved numbers (which included 4646, which the vehicle owner insisted should be allotted to him). He contended that Rule 55A, was ultra-vires the provisions of the Act.
3. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel for the State relied upon the scheme of the Act, and highlighted that while Section 41(2) undoubtedly conferred the power to prescribe rules and also a fee to allot registration numbers, yet Section 41(6) was specific in that even while the Central Government was authorized to allot certain numbers to the State, the further or onward registration or assignment of those numbers as registration numbers was left to the State.
4. Learned counsel argued that the State Rules were framed by virtue of the powers conferred under section 65 of the Act, which empowers the State to inter-alia, make rules with regard to issue or renewal of certificate of registration, as well as amounts to be charged for such registration. It was also argued that under Section 211 of the Act, the State is entitled to levy a fee with respect to applications submitted for issuing certificates, licenses or registrations and as the State fixed the procedure for allotment of registration mark by reservation exercising powers under Section 211, such procedure is in accordance with the law. It was argued by Mr. Mishra, that by virtue of Section 41 (6), the registering authority can assign to any vehicle for display on it, a distinguishing mark known as the registration mark. It is submitted that in this instance, since Rule 55A merely empowers the registering authority to assign a specific registration mark, on demand to the concerned person, the power exercised is relatable to Section 41(6) and the High Court’s conclusions are erroneous.
5. It was pointed out by Mr. Mishra that the responsibility of assigning registration mark to motor vehicles is that of the State Government. He emphasized that Section 64 (d) of the Act empowers the Central Government to “prescribe the manner and the form in which the registration mark of the vehicles is to be displayed.” The Central Government has in fact, s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
