The Commissioner of Transport lacks authority to impose conditions on vehicle registration under BH series that are contrary to Central Rules, as established by statutory framework and constitutional mandates.

Headnote:(A) Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 64 - Central Motor Vehicles (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 2021 - BH-series vehicle registration - The petitioner, a government employee, challenged the denial of vehicle registration under the BH series based on compliance with statutory requirements - Rules demanded only an Official Identity Card for registration, but conditions were imposed via a Circular that contradicted these Rules - The Court found the Circular illegal and unconstitutional, mandating adherence to the original statutory provisions. (Paras 3, 4, 18, 29, 30)

(B) Jurisdictional Authority - The Commissioner cannot impose additional registration requirements that are not provided for in the Central Rules, as it contravenes Articles 254 and 256 of the Constitution. (Paras 19, 20, 28)

(C) Public Interest - Revenue concerns raised by the Commissioner do not justify circumventing established legal frameworks, affirming the supremacy of statutory provisions over circulars. (Paras 21, 27)

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER G.S.KULKARNI, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.

Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raises a challenge to the action of respondent no.1 – Commissioner of Transport (for short “the Commissioner”) to the effect that the petitioner’s motor vehicle – a motor car, recently purchased by him, is being denied registration under the ‘BH series’.

3. The case of the petitioner is that no reasons in writing are furnished to the petitioner, as to why the registration is being denied, although the petitioner has complied with the conditions as contained in the rules framed by the Central Government, namely the Central Motor Vehicles (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 2021 (“said Rules”).

4. The petitioner, is a Government Servant, presently working as Civil Judge, Senior Division, in the Maharashtra State Judicial Services. The petitioner has complied with the condition as prescribed in Clause 2 (cb) of the said Rules of submitting an Official Identity Card, which is the only compliance required to be furnished.

5. To appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to note Clause 2(cb) of the said Rules which reads thus:

“(cb) Official Identity Card, in case the applicant working in Government office applies for BH-series registration mark.”

6. As urged on behalf of the petitioner, in regard to the petitioner’s application compliance of Clause 2(cb) of the Rules is the only relevant compliance, which stood complied by the petitioner, as the petitioner had submitted Official Identity Card issued by the Government of Maharashtra, District & Sessions Court, Pune, depicting that the petitioner is in the services of the Government working as Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Khed Rajgurunagar, Dist.Pune. Copy of the petitioner’s identity card is also annexed to the writ petition.

7. It is the petitioner’s contention that registration of a vehicle under the BH-Series was introduced by the Government of India, to facilitate convenient transfer of vehicles in different States and Union Territories by a notification dated 26^th August 2021 was issued under the Motor Vehicles Act.

8. As noted above it is the petitioner’s case that the rules specifically provide that if the registration of vehicle under BH series is to be opted by the applicant working in the government service, he has to provide his Official Identity Card, which is the only requirement. It is contended that despite such compliance the petitioner’s application for registration of his vehicle under the BH Series is not processed or is being rejected. On enquiries, the petitioner learnt that what was foisted on the petitioner to deny registration of his vehicle under the BH series was a Circular dated 21^st February 2024 issued by the Commissioner. It is submitted that what has been referred by the Commissioner and his officers in denying registration was Clause 4(i) of said Circular, which inter alia records that a person who is in the government service, and who intends to apply for registration of his vehicle under the BH Series, would be required to comply with other requirements, which are to the effect that if the Vehicle-owner is in Government Service and who claims that the offices are in various States of India, then he is required to furnish a Certificate in respect of his stay at such places, as also his payment slips during his previous service tenure in various States, be obtained. Also a verification of the fact, whether before submitting application, the vehicle owner was working in the very department/ company in other State, wherein he is presently working, shall be ascertained and only thereafter, the vehicle shall be held valid for registration in ‘BH Series’.

9. The contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner is that such conditions being foisted on the petitioner’s application under the said Circular are totally contrary to the requi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7158

The Commissioner of Transport lacks authority to impose conditions on vehicle registration under BH series that are contrary to Central Rules, as established by statutory framework and constitutional mandates.

Login now and unlock premium legal research