Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. The present batch of appeals by the State is against a common judgment and order dated 10.01.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No.27633 of 2016 and analogous cases by learned single Judge of this Court.

2. Delay in filing the appeals are condoned and with the consent of parties, we have heard the matter at length for its final disposal at this stage itself.

3. The issue relates to the validity of first proviso to Rule 105(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as brought in by the Kerala Motor Vehicles (First Amendment) Rules, 2016 with effect from 18.04.2016. The learned single Judge has declared the proviso as introduced to be ultra vires the rule making powers of the State. The State is aggrieved and hence the intra court appeals.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy it is first necessary to notice the statutory provisions relevant under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act, 1988), Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short ‘Central Rules’) and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short ‘Kerala Rules’). The dispute is with regard to grant or renewal of certificate of fitness in respect of a transport vehicle and whether the provision that mandates that the application shall not be accepted unless the same is accompanied by a clearance certificate in ‘Form CC’ from the original registering authority to the effect that the vehicle has ‘no government dues, arrears of Motor Vehicle Tax or any other legal action pending in that office’ can be sustained in law or not.

5. In this regard the relevant would be Sections 56, 64 (m) (n) & (o), 65(1), 65(2)(d) & (l), 86(5) & (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Rule 73 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989; the 1st proviso to Rule 105 (2) and Rule 186 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which read as follows:

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorised testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made there under. Provided that where the prescribed authority or the “authorised testing station” refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal.

(2) The “authorised testing station” referred to in sub-section(1) means a vehicle service station or public or private garage which the State Government, having regard to the experience, training and ability of the operator of such station or garage and the testing equipment and the testing personnel therein, may specify in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government for regulation and control of such stations or garages.

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section(4), certificate of fitness shall remain effective for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government having regard to the objects of this Act.

(4) The prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder; and on such cancellation the certificate of registration of the vehicle and any permit granted in respect of the vehicle under Chapter V shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate of fitness has been obtained:

[Provided that no such cancellation shall be made by the prescribed authority unless such prescribed authority holds such technical qualification as may be prescribed or where the prescribed authority does not hold such technical qualific