Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17945
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
ASSOCIATION OF AUTHORISED TESTING STATIONS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES (KERALA) – Appellant
Versus
THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS – Respondent
WP(C) 2765/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DR.V.N.SANKARJEE, SHRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN, SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI, SRI.M.M.VINOD, SMT.M.SUSEELA, SMT. KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN, SHRI.VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K., SRI.C.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, SHRI.SINEESH K.M.
For the Respondents: SHRI. SREEJITH V.S. GP
Executive orders cannot override statutory provisions; hence validity for PUC certificates is conclusively twelve months for BS-IV vehicles.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The validity of Pollution Under Control Certificate (PUCC) for BS-IV two-wheelers and three-wheelers set to one year via Ext.P6, varying from six months under Ext.P1 (C.M.V.R Act, Rule 115). Facts: The petitioner contested the change in PUCC validity arguing inconsistencies with statutory provisions, previously upheld in W.P.
(C) No.30776 of 2023.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the validity period for vehicles as twelve months under statute.
Issues: The court examined whether the six-month validity set by Ext.P6 violates the due statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that executive orders must align with statutory provisions and the exclusion of BS-IV norms is unjustifiable, confirming twelve months validity under applicable rules.
Result: The writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. puc validity period for bs-iv vehicles must align with statutory provisions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contesting review petitions require proper standing under applicable laws. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. discussions on the irrelevance of executive orders when statutory provisions exist. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court reaffirmed twelve months validity as per rule 115's proviso. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 government order dated
26.12.2023, which fixed the period of validity of the Pollution Under Control Certificate (PUCC) for two wheeler and three wheeler vehicles (petrol) in the BS-IV Category as one year by varying Ext.P1 government order, which had fixed the validity for the said category, as six months. Ext.P1 government order dated 22.08.2022 was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.30776 of 2023 on the ground that the same was in variance with Sub Rule 7 of Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short ‘C.M.V.R Act’).
2. This Court, after considering the relevant provisions, found that for the motor vehicles manufactured under BS-IV and BS-VI norms, the validity of the PUC Certificate shall be for twelve months. Thus the contention of the petitioner therein that the prescription of six months period under Ext.P1 government order ultra vires was the statutory provision occurring in Sub Rule 7 of Rule 115 was accepted and holding that executive orders cannot override the statutory prescriptions, quashed Ext.P1 order to the extent it prescribed the validity of PUCC for BS-IV and BS-VI vehicles as six months and declared that the validity of the PUCC with respect to the said vehicles shall be for twelve months from the date of registration.
3. The petitioner herein, a third party, filed a writ appeal seeking leave, which was disposed of, directing the petitioner to file a review through Ext.P5 order in I. A No.1 of 2023 in W.A.F No.2085 of 2023. Accordingly, the petitioner filed R.P. No.414 of 2024. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner, who claims to be the General Secretary of the Vehicle Emission Testing Owners Association, Kerala, had not produced any certificate of registration under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1956 and therefore the review petition was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. However, on merits, the learned Judge took note of the fact that there cannot be any rational differentia in providing the different validity period for PUC in respect of two-wheelers and four-wheelers manufactured under BS-IV or BS-VI norms. Therefore, finding that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the review petition was dismissed.
4. The petitioner again filed Writ Appeal No.1826 of 2024, which was disposed of as infructuous, as, by that time, he had filed the present writ petition challenging Ext.P6, government order issued pursuant to the directions in W.P.(C) No.30776 of 2023.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, impugning Ext.P6 order, contends that the norms stated in Table A under Rule 115 do not prescribe any norms for BS-IV vehicles, in particular the two and three-wheelers (petrol) and therefore one year prescribed in the proviso will not apply under the proviso to Sub Rule (7) of Section 115 of the C.M.V.R which prescribes a validity of twelve months for the vehicles manufactured as per BS-IV or BS-VI norms.
6. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits on the basis of the counter affidavit filed on 18.02.2025, that after the amendment to Rule 115, the Government after examining the matters in detail, fixed the validity of PUC certificates for two and three wheelers (petrol) which come under BS-IV category as six months. As Ext.P1 government order dated
22.08.2022, was quashed in the judgment in W.P(C) No.30776 of 2023, Ext.P6 was issued, which is also in tune with the relevant C.M.V. Rules.
7. After hearing both sides and perusing the records and the
