Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994:
r. 55 A – Validity of – High Court held that Rule 55-A is ultra vires the State’s power under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Held: In view of ss. 65(1) and 211 of Motor Vehicles Act, State Government has the authority to prescribe a fee for reserving certain numbers or distinguishing marks to be assigned as registration numbers – Therefore, Rule 55A is not in excess of the powers conferred upon the State by the Act or the Central Rules – The State was competent to make the legislation through the provisions of the Act – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss. 65(1) and 211 – Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. The High Court, in its impugned judgement, lost sight of the true import of Section 211 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The existence of specific provisions empowering the State [such as Sections 41(13), 47(7), 49(4) and 50(5)] of the Act, means that the power of the State to claim or charge amounts, is specifically recognized by express provisions. Further, there are F certain services and functions for which the State is empowered to levy fees. It is precisely to cover these contingencies, i.e. where the service is rendered or some function performed, that the State is empowered by a residual provision (much like the Central Government with which it shares the power concurrently) to levy G fees. Section 211 is cast in wide terms and that any rule which the Central Government or the State Government is empowered to make under the Act may, notwithstanding the absence of any express provision to that effect, provide for the levy of such fees in respect of applications, amendment of documents, issue of certificates, licences, permits, tests, endorsements, badges, plates, countersignatures, authorisation, supply of statistics or copies of documents or orders and for any other purpose or matter involving the rendering of any service. Clearly, therefore, the Parliament intended that contingencies not covered by a specific power to levy fees or amounts, which entailed some activity on the part of the State, including rendering of any service could be legitimately charged or subjected to the levy of fee or amounts. [Para 29] [754-D-G]
2. The assignment of numbers by the registering authority through an official/agency or department notified by the State Government, cannot be seen as a mere step – albeit at the fagend of the registration allotment process. In fact, though it is the culmination of the allotment process, it is nevertheless an important step. The state is entitled to indicate its choice or manner of assigning by prescribing a particular set of procedures for the assignment of numbers. Thus, for instance, the assignment of the concerned “code” - to the individual registering authorities followed by the assignment of numerics may follow a predetermined pattern which may be district wise, State Government department wise (in the case of publicly owned vehicles), different sequences for buses and heavy vehicles and so on. If such a predetermined choice can be made by prescribing the mode of assignment, it is both regulatory and at the same time indicative of State policy. Per se, the Court cannot brush aside the element of service which may be involved – especially if the general public or a sub-section of it, wishes to choose particular numbers for various considerations. Such “fancy” numbers or “auspicious” numbers may well therefore have to be set apart having regard to the peculiar socio-cultural needs of the people of the state. It is in such an event that the availability of such numbers and their reservation as a choice and the power of their assignment assumes importance. In the impugned Rule 55A in the present instance, introduced in 2001 through amendment by the State of M.P., prescribes four different fees – ` 15000/- for the registration marks 1 to 9 in any series prevalent within the jurisdiction of the registering authority; and ` 12000/- for reservation of marks from 10 to 100 in any series within the jurisdiction of the registering authority. For reservation of large series of numbers indicated in Rule 55A(c), ` 10000/-and ` 2000/- for reservation of any other number or numbers within 1000 from the last number assigned in the serial order. In addition to charging such fees, the registering authority is enjoined by Rule 55A(2) to follow the principle of first-come-first-serve in reserving particular numbers; and to allot the registration mark reserved upon production of the vehicle along with the application in Form-20 (of the Central Rules), provided the vehicle is compliant with the provisions of the Act and Rules. By Rule 55A(d), the reservation of the mark would be cancelled if the vehicle is not produced for allotment within three months from the date of allotment. Obviously, this is meant to avoid abuse of the reservation process by trafficking in numbers, by providing finite time within which such numbers can be used. [Paras 30, 31][754H; 755-A-D; 756-A; 757-A-D]
3. The generality of the power under Section 65(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to frame rules is sufficient along with Section 211, to conclude that the State Government has the authority to prescribe a fee for reserving certain numbers or distinguishing marks to be assigned as registration numbers. It has not been shown how the setting apart of or reservation of some numbers – here, a fraction of the large potential batch of numbers which the registering authority can otherwise assign to vehicles, is per se arbitrary or unreasonable. Neither were any such arguments urged before this Court. [Para 33][758-D-F]
4. Whenever a State confers rule making power or empowers delegated legislation, i.e. where or wherever the statute first lays out a general provision authorizing subordinate legislation or the framing of separate legislation to carry out the purposes of that Act, and uses the expression “in particular and without generality of the foregoing powers”, followed by another delegation which enumerates specific powers preceded by expressions such as “in particular and without the generality of the foregoing powers,” the particularization is only illustrative and does not subsume the general power. [Para 34][758-F-H]
5. Therefore, the assignment of “distinctive marks” i.e. registration numbers to motor vehicles (which includes the power to reserve and allocate them, for a specific fee) is a distinct service for which states or their authorities (such as the registering authorities, in this case) are entitled to charge a prescribed fee. Rule 55A of the MP Rules is not therefore, in excess of the powers conferred upon the state, by the Act or the Central Rules. [Para 39][761-E-F]
6. It is not correct to say that the State was not competent to make the legislation. The State of M.P. derived its powers to frame the concerned rules, through the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act itself. The question, therefore, of repugnance as properly understood, did not arise; rather it was a case whether the state government, as one of the delegated authorities, was empowered through Parliamentary law to frame the rule that it did. [Para 40][761-G-H; 762-A]
Offshore Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority (2011) 3 SCC 139 : [2011] 1 SCR 453; Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh v. State of M.P (1981)
4 SCC 471; Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 274 : [2011] 8 SCR 680; D.K. Trivedi & Sons v. State of Gujarat (1986) Suppl. SCC
20 : [1986] 1 SCR 479; Afzal Ullah v. State of U.P. [1964] 4 SCR 991 – relied on.
Distt. Council of United Khasi and Jaintia Hills v. Sitimon Sawian (1971) 3 SCC 708 : [1972] 1 SCR 398; Indian Medical Assn. v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC
179 : [2011] 6 SCR 599; Jantia Hill Truck Owners Assn. v. Shailang Area Coal Dealer & Truck Owner Assn. (2009) 8 SCC 492 : [2009] 10 SCR 536; T. Cajee v. U. Jormanik Siem [1961] 1 SCR 750; Surinder Singh v. Central Government (1986) 4 SCC 667 : [1986] 3 SCR 946; Rohtak & Hissar District Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of UP AIR 1966 SC 1471 : [1966] 2 SCR 863; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 222 : [2013]
12 SCR 999; K. Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1985) 2 SCC 116 : [1985] 2 SCR 1028 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.