The State Government holds the legislative competence to mandate age limitations for vehicles as a condition for granting stage carriage permits, which remains legally distinct from, and independent of, the Central Government's authority to specify the mechanical life of a vehicle for registration purposes.

ORDER :

Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla

The present petition has been filed by the bus owners through its President challenging the sub-Clause III of Sub Rule 1(A) of Rule 77 of the M.P Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 as ultravires and also prayed for quashment of the Order dated 7/11/2025 passed by the respondent No.4 and circular dated 14/11/2025.

2. Sub-Rule 1-A of Rule 77 of the M.P Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 is reproduced as under:-

(1-A) In order to ensure safe, secure and convenient transport services to the passengers, the permit granting authority while granting a stage carriage permit shall abide the following conditions, namely,--

(i) that no stage carriage permit shall be granted on interstate route to a vehicle which has completed 10 years from the manufacture year;

ii) that no stage carriage permit shall be granted for ordinary route within the State to a vehicle which has completed 15 years from the year of manufacture;

(iii) that no stage carriage permit shall be granted for any route to the vehicle which has completed 15 years from the year of manufacture;

(iv) that for long distance route of 75 K.M. in a single trip, the following category of vehicle with seating capacity shown against each shall be permitted to ply, --"

3. The aforesaid provisions provided that the permit granting authority shall apply the condition that no permit shall be granted for any route to the vehicle who has completed 15 years from the year of manufacture as inserted by notification No.E-1-6/2009/VIII dated 24/11/2010.

4. It is argued that by virtue of the said amendment, the State of M.P has fixed the life of vehicle which can be plied on the roads as Stage carriage vehicles between various routes. This inserted Rule notified by the State Government has been issued in purported exercise of powers under Section 65 , 96 and 211 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter to be referred as the Act). It is argued that the aforesaid Rules is ultravires and beyond the competence of the State Government as the provisions of the Act do not confer power to the State Government to prescribe life of vehicle.

5. Counsel for the appellant referred the provisions of Section 41 of the Act, the procedure is prescribed for registration to a Motor Vehicle. Sub- Section 7 of Section 41 provides that a certificate of registration issued under sub-Section (3), whether before or after the commencement of the Act, in respect of a motor vehicle shall subject to provisions contained in this Act be valid only for period of 15 years from the date of issue of such certificate as may be prescribed by the Central Government and shall be renewable. Section 59 of the Act confers power on the Central Government to fix the age validity of the Motor Vehicle. Section 64 confers power on the Central Government to make Rules. In sub Section d(a) of Section 64 of the Act, the power to frame Rules for providing the period of validity of a certificate for registration under sub-Section 7 of Section 41 of the Act is with the Central Government. Thus, power to fix a life of a vehicle for the Registration certificate is within the domain of the Central Government. He also referred the provisions of Section 65 of the Act which deals with the power of the State Government to make Rules which do not confer power to the State Government to frame Rules prescribing "life" of a vehicle. On the aforesaid premises, he argued that the notice dated 7/11/2025 and circular dated 14/11/2025 are without jurisdiction. To bolster his submission, counsel for the app