The State Government has the authority to levy fees for permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the principle of natural justice was not violated in the issuance of the notification.

R. N. BISWAL, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners who are Bus and Truck Owners' Associations and some private bus and truck operators belonging to different parts of Orissa, have filed the aforesaid writ petitions raising substantially similar points of law and as such, they were heard analogously and a common judgment is passed thereon.

( 2 ) THE issue raised for consideration of this Court in all these cases is validity of the notification dated 26-11-1998 of the government of Orissa, Commerce and transport Department bearing No. LC-1-16/98- 16000/t bringing amendment to Orissa motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 which was called as "orissa Motor Vehicles (Third Amendment) Rules, 1998. The facts in O. J. C. No. 17368 of 1998 is taken as typical of the cases which has been filed by the Ganjam Bus owners' Association through its Secretary. As per this case, opposite party No. 1 published a notification in Orissa Gazette on 25-8-1998 in which it proposed to amend the entire fees structure relating to fees for application of grant of permit, renewal of permit, extension of permit, counter-signature of the permit and fees in respect of grant, renewal, extension, counter-signature and transfer of permit. A bare perusal of the amended Rule 48 would show that the fees for application as well as the fees for the permit of different kinds are highly exorbitant and excessive. In the pre-amendment rules the fees for application of permit was fixed at Rs. 40. 00, taking into consideration the cost of stationeries and other incidental expenses. Now, it has been enhanced to Rs. 500. 00 in respect of application for a permanent stage carriage permit and Rs. 100. 00 for an application for temporary permit. According to the petitioner no opportunity of being heard was afforded to it before the final publication of the impugned notification, whereby there was violation of the principle of natural justice. Moreover, the Motor vehicles Act authorizes the State Government only to frame Rules relating to the fees to be paid in respect of application for permit, duplicate permit and plates. So, the impugned notification prescribing fees for grant, renewal, counter-signature and transfer of permit is without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the statute. The impugned notification is made only to collect revenue, which is against the tenet of the motor Vehicles Act. A comparative study of the fees prescribed under the Motor Vehicles rules of different States go to show that nowhere in India such exorbitant fees have been prescribed for grant of permit and application for permit, as in the impugned notification. It is the further case of the petitioner that the service rendered by the authority collecting fees may not be in an exact proportion to the fees collected, but there must be casual relationship between the fees and the service rendered. In the case at hand, no service whatsoever being rendered by the State of Orissa in respect of fees collected, the entire concept of imposition of fees is highly unreasonable. Hence, the case to quash the impugned notification.

( 3 ) OPPOSITE party No. 1 in its counter-affidavit filed through Gokula Chandra Nag, joint Commissioner, Rail Co-ordination and joint Secretary to the Government, Commerce and Transport Department states that it is legally competent to levy fees on motor vehicles under Sections 96 and 211 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As required under Section 212 of the said Act preliminary notification No. 10595, dated 22/8/1998 was published in the Official Gazette on 25/8/1998, inviting objections and suggestions, if any, to the proposed amendment. The objections/suggestions were to be made within 15 days from the date of publication. During this period State Government received 35 objections and after considering the same, published the final notification bearing No. 16000, dated 25-11 -1998 revising both application and permit fees. Since there is no provision for personal hearing of the objections in the M