( 1 ) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the validity of Rule 55 of the Central Provinces and Berar motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), imposing a fee in respect of the grant and renewal of a permit, and prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing a demand made on him by the Secretary, Regional equivalent Citation: transport Authority, Raipur, by letter dated 6th January 1964 asking him to pay a permit fee of Rs. 50/- for each of the six regions where he has been permitted to ply his trucks under permits.

( 2 ) THE applicant had obtained extension of the permits held by him for the plying of trucks in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh. When he applied for a renewal of the permits, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, informed him that he was required to pay a permit fee of Rs. 50/-for renewal of the permit for each region and that ho had also to pay Rs. 120/-as permit fee for the six regions for which his permits were extended originally.

( 3 ) SHRI Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that Rule 55 imposing fees in respect of the grant and renewal of a permit was saved when section 68 (2) (g) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, gave to the State Government the power to make a rule with respect to "the fees to be paid in respect of permits, duplicate permits, plates and badges "that for this clause a new Clause (g) was substituted by Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1950 (Act 100 of 1956) in the following terms: "the fees to be paid in respect of applications for permits, duplicate permits and plates;" that after this amendment fees could be prescribed by a rule in respect of applications for permits but not for permits themselves; and that, therefore, Rule 55 became ultra vires after the amendment of Section 68 (2) (g) in so far as it prescribed fees in respect of the grant and renewal of a permit. Learned counsel also submitted in the alternative that in any case as Clause (d) of the amended rule 55 laid down that there shall be no fee for the countersignature of a permit, the applicant could not be called upon to pay a permit fee for all the six regions for which a renewal of extension of permits was sought and that be could be asked to pay a permit fee only for one region, namely, the Raipur region.

( 4 ) IN reply. Shri Bhave, Learned Government Advocate, said that even under the amended Clause (g) of Section 68 (2) a rule could be made prescribing a fee for permits as the expression ''in respect of applications for permits" covered permits also. Learned Government Advocate, however, founded strongly upon Section 68 (1) of the Act which provides that "the State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter'', that is Chapter IV. It was argued that Sub-section (2) of Section 68 gave to the Government the power to make rules with regard to the matters specified in the various clauses of that sub-section without prejudice to the generality of the rule making power conferred by Sub-section (1); that Sub-section (2) was in no way restrictive of sub-section (1); that, therefore, even if the levy or imposition of a fee in respect of permits was not a matter enumerated in Sub-section (2), still the Government by virtue of its rule making power under Sub-section (1) could make a rule with regard to fees in respect of the grant and renewal of permits; and that the validity of Rule 55 was in no way affected by the substitution of a new Clause (g) in equivalent Citation: section 68 (2) by the Amendment Act of 1956. Learned Government Advocate frankly and rightly conceded that under Clause (d) of Rule 55 the petitioner could be asked to pay a permit fee only for one region and not for all the regions for which be sought a renewal of extension of his permits.

( 5 ) IN our judgment, the contention of learned counsel for t