The State Government has the power to make rules under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act, including rules relating to the age of motor vehicles, seating capacity, classification of routes, and delegation of powers to District Transport Officers.

R.S. Jha, J.

1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional, validity of the amendments made by the State Government by Notification dated 24-11-2010 published in M.P. Rajpatra, dated 24-11-2010 in Rules 64, 67, 77, 103, 116 and 204 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') and the insertion of Rule 116-A in the aforesaid Rules. As the issues involved in all the petitions are similar, they are heard and decided concomitantly by a common order.

2. Most of the petitioners in the instant petitions, except a few, hold temporary permits issued for plying stage carriages while some hold regular permits for plying stage carriages. It is submitted that the petitioners have been in the transport business and have been obtaining regular stage carriage permits under section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) and mostly temporary permits under section 87 of the Act and are regularly plying stage carriages on various routes in the State of M.P.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners after purchasing vehicles by investing huge amounts of money and obtaining loan for that purpose from various banks have obtained the aforesaid stage carriage permits under the provisions of the Act and the petitioners are plying ordinary buses having the capacity to carry less than 50 passengers on long routes which are beyond 150 K.Ms.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that vide Notification dated 24-11-2010 the impugned amendment has been made by the State by inserting Rule 77(1 a) in the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1994') whereby it has been prescribed that while granting the stage carriage permits, the permit granting authority shall not do so in respect of a vehicle which has completed 10 years from the year of its manufacture in case of inter-state route, 15 years from the year of manufacture in case of ordinary route within the State and 20 years from the year of manufacture in case of any other route and has further provided that permits of long distance routes of 150 K.Ms, and above in a single trip shall be granted to ordinary buses only in cases where the buses are having a seating capacity of not less than 50+2 seats excluding the driver and conductor.

5. The petitioners have also challenged amendments made in Rules 64 and 67 in the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 by which provision has been made for the appointment of District Transport Officers and to confer powers upon them to grant, refuse or renew stage carriages or contract carriage permits and the classification of routes as ordinary routes and rural routes that has been made by inserting Rule 116-A in the Rules of 1994.

6. In one of the petitions, namely, W.P. No. 2080/2011 the petitioner has challenged insertion of sub-rule (4)(a) in Rule 204 of the Rules of 1994 which enables the State Government to authorize any person, officer or body to collect fees from vehicle owners using bus stand facilities at the rate of fees specified from time to time.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid amendments have been made by the State Government ignoring the fact that the petitioners are holders of valid permits and have the right to continue to ply stage carriages under the same conditions and their right to renewal of the stage carriage permits on the same conditions cannot be taken away or restricted by bringing in and enforcing the impugned amendments in the rules.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the power to fix the age of the motor vehicle has been conferred only upon the Central Government by section 59 of the Act. It is stated that there is no other provision under the Act which empowers the State to fix the age of a motor vehicle and, therefore, the amendment made by the impugned notification by inserting Rule 77(1 a) in t