State Government lacks authority to impose vehicle age limit for permit issuance under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; such power is vested solely with the Central Government.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayer:

a. “Quashing the endorsements dated 26.05.2025 bearing No.Prasaa/Belag/School/College Vehicle/25-26 issued for the vehicles bearing no.KA22 B4213, KA 22 A 7083, KA 22 A 7084, KA 22 8127, KA 22 A 9834 and KA 22 A 7133 by the Respondent No.3 to the Petitioner (Annexure E and E5 respectively).

b. Pass any such orders this court deem fit.”

2. Heard Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel for petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in unison would submit that, the issue in the lis stands covered by judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.21991/2019 C/w 18343-18344/2019, 28150-28151/2019, disposed off on 20^th August 2019. The Coordinate Bench of this Court held as follows:

“The question of law raised in all these petitions being common, all the petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. For deciding these petitioners, it shall be refer the facts and pleadings in W.P.No.21991/2019.

2. In WP No.21991/2019, petitioner has questioned the validity of Circular dated 14.2.2019 vide Annexure-H and endorsement dated 7.3.2019 and order dated 24.5.2019 vide Annexures-J and J1 respectively. Similarly, in WP Nos.18343- 18344/2019, petitioner has assailed endorsement dated 21.3.2019 and circular dated 14.2.2019 vide Annexure-E and H respectively and in WP Nos.28150- 28151/2019, petitioner has assailed endorsement dated 18.6.2019 and circular dated 14.2.2019 vide Annexures-K and M respectively.

3. In these bunch of petitions, common grievance of the petitioners is to set aside the circular dated 14.2.2019, by which State Government imposed conditions for the purpose of issuance of permit/renewal of permit only if transport motor vehicle is within fifteen years from the date of registration and further such of those permit holders whose transport motor vehicle is fifteen years old were permitted to replace such old vehicle to later model vehicles. Thus, each of the petitioners’ grievance relating to renewal of permit has not been allowed on the sole ground that their vehicle crossed fifteen years from the date of registration of their each vehicle. Further, official- respondent has issued endorsements/order in terms of circular dated: 14.02.2019. Hence, petitioners are before this Court.

4. In all these bunch of petitions, petitioners’ shove of arguments is that circular dated 14.2.2019 issued by the Government restricting issuance of permit only to such of those vehicles, which are within fifteen years and permitted to replace vehicle, such of those vehicle, which has crossed fifteen years from the date of registration by later model vehicle is without authority of law and contrary to Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `Act, 1988’).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following provisions:

1. Sub-section 7 of Section 2 relates to ‘contract carriage’;

2. Sub-section 43 of Section 2 relates to ‘tourist vehicle;

3. Section 59 relates to ‘power to fix the age limit of motor vehicle’;

4. Section 95 relates to ‘power of State Government to make rules as to stage carriages and contract carriages’.

5. Section 96 relates to ‘State Government to make rules for the purposes of this Chapter (Chapter – V);

6. Learned counsel vehemently contended that State Government has no power to issue any Rules or order or circular to cover the age limit of motor vehicle since such power is identified at Section 59 of the Act, 1988, which empowers only the Central Government. Officials/respondents’ contention that source of power under Section 72(2)(xxiv) of the Act, 1988, under this provision, there is no specific power vested with the State Government insofar as touching the issue relating to the age limit of motor vehicle.