IMPORTANT POINT
The imposition of an additional fee for delay in renewing fitness certificates is punitive and unauthorized under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

ORDER :

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ.)

1. Since these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise common issue of law for consideration, therefore, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. For brevity and convenience, wherever necessary, we shall refer to the pleadings and documents placed on record in Shyam Prakash Meena & Others Vs. Union of India & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14258/2024) and Raja Ram & Others Vs. Union of India & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6428/2024).

I. FACTS:

2. In all these petitions, the petitioners, who are transport operators, have assailed constitutional validity and vires of the provisions contained in Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1989’) as amended vide notification dated 04.10.2021 to the extent it seeks to levy “additional fee of fifty rupees for each day of delay after expiry of certificate of fitness”.

The petitioners are transport operators and they are required to keep their vehicles in a condition fit to operate on roads. The State has opened number of fitness testing centres where the vehicles are required to be subjected to test of fitness as per the norms prescribed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) read with the rules framed thereunder. The competent authority certifies fitness of a transport vehicle for a specified period. The law requires the fitness certificate to be renewed from time to time without which a vehicle cannot be allowed to operate on roads. Rule 81 of the Rules of 1989, as amended vide notification dated 04.10.2021 prescribes various regulatory fee as also fee towards providing services. Along with an application for grant/renewal of fitness certificate of a particular motor vehicle, application fee is envisaged under the Rules of 1989. While Rule 81 of the Rules of 1989 lays down application fee in the matter of grant/renewal of fitness certificate, Serial No. 11A of Rule 81 of the Rules of 1989 seeks to levy additional fee for delay of each day in making an application for renewal.

All these petitions seek to challenge imposition of additional fee of Rs. 50/- for delay of each day in submitting application for renewal. Accordingly, Rule 81 of the Rules of 1989 as amended vide notification dated 04.10.2021 to the extent it incorporates a provision with regard to levy of additional fee of fifty rupees for each day of delay as provided under Serial No. 11A thereof is under challenge in these petitions.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS:

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Central Government derives its power to levy fee within the scope and ambit of fee that may be levied under the provisions of the Act of 1988 including Section 211 thereof. Moreover, the Central Government is empowered to make rules under Section 64 of the Act of 1988 which includes the power to levy fee for certain matters. The power to levy fee, therefore, is referable to the scheme of the Act of 1988 and no fee can be levied which is not provided under the Act of 1988. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that while power to levy fee is traceable to the rule making authority as contained in Section 64 of the Act of 1988 read with Section 211, which provides for general power to levy fee, it does not confer power to levy fee on the ground that there is delay in submission of application for renewal of fitness certificate. Prescription of the rule that additional fee shall be leviable for each day of delay in submission of application partakes the nature of fine or penalty as the delay in submission of application for renewal is sought to be penalised. This, therefore, it is contended, is not fee because it is not connected with any regulatory exercise or towards rendering services but in substance, a penal action, penalising the transport operators for not sub