The State Government does not have the legislative competence to make rules that encroach upon the Central Government's power to fix the age limit of motor vehicles under Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

( 1 ) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : since in all these writ petitions vires of a provision of the West Bengal motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rule 88a, has been challenged, they have been heard together. In three writ petitions moved on the appellate side validity of a notification dated May 24th, 2005 issued under that Rule 88a has also been questioned.

( 2 ) THE rule was inserted by rule 2 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2005. It reads as follows :"88a. Powers of the State Government to impose special conditions on permit restricting plying of transport vehicles (Passenger as well as goods) beyond a particular age and in any particular area of the State.-The State Government may by issue of notification to be published in the Official Gazette, direct the State Transport Authority or the Regional transport Authority, as the case may be, to impose such special conditions on issue of permits for transport vehicles as may deem fit restricting the plying of transport vehicles beyond particular age and in any particular areas of the State for safe movement of the vehicular traffic to avoid congestion and to reduce the level of automobile pollution and for safety of the passengers in public interest. ,the State Government may also impose such restrictions on the existing permit holders by giving prior notice of not less than sixty days. "

( 3 ) THE common case in all the writ petitions is that not only the State government lacks in legislative competence to make the impugned rule, but it is also ultra vires the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 59, which is :"59. Power to fix the age limit of motor vehicle.- (1) The Central government may, having regard to the public safety, convenience and objects of this Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the life of a motor vehicle reckoned from the date of its manufacture, after the expiry of which the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder: provided that the Central Government may specify different ages for different classes or different types of motor vehicles. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central government may having regard to the purpose of a motor vehicle, such as, display or use for the purposes of a demonstration in any exhibition, use for the purposes of technical research or taking part in a vintage car rally, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt, by a general or special order, subject to such conditions as may be specified in such notification, any class or type of motor vehicle from the operation of sub-section (1)for the purpose to. be stated in the notification. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 56, no prescribed authority testing station shall grant a certificate of fitness to a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of any notification issued under sub-section (1 ). "advocates for the petitioners read out to me relevant provisions of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, and concluded that they could not see which one of them conferred on the State Government the power to make the rule through which it, in reality, encroached upon an occupied filed. They added that the State government unauthorisedly usurped the power conferred by the statute on the central Government to fix the age limit of a motor vehicle.

( 4 ) ADVOCATE for the petitioners in W. P. No. 1857 of 2005 gave me the decisions in Buxa Dooars Tea Co Ltd. and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , (1989)3 SCC 211 (holding that a legislation pertaining to a covered filed has to be treated as void for want of legislative competence), Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. , (1990)3 SCC 223 (holding that power delegated by statute is limited by its terms and subordinate to its objects; and that if the rule made by the delegate is unjust or oppressive or outrageous or direc