Orissa High Court
Siba Prasad Dubey vs Union Of India on 26 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23387 of 2022 and Batch
W.P.(C) No.23387 of 2022
Siba Prasad Dubey, aged about 44 years, S/o. Surendra Dubey, At-
Gurukhetra, Puruna Nadikula Sahi, Sikharpur, P.O. Nayabazar, P.S.-
Chauliaganj, Dist.- Cuttack, Vehicle No. OR-02-AA-4717(TRUCK).
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Union of India, represented through Secretary, Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways, New Delhi.
2. The Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman, State
Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack.
3. Asst. Regional Transport Officer, Khordha, At/Po. Khordha,
Dist. Khordha.
...Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.16496 of 2022
Tirubala Parida, aged about 41 years, W/o. Dasarathi Parida, At.-
Kesinga, P.O/P.S.- Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16497 of 2022
Mallick Inayat, aged about 51 years, S/o. Malik Masum, At.-
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 1 of 30
Majhikhand, P.O. Niali, Dist.- Cuttack.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16882 of 2022
Kuldeep Kumar Agarwal, aged about 51 years, S/o. Sitaram Agarwal
Behind Minocha Petrol Pump, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16883 of 2022
Muralilal Agarwal, aged about 45 years, S/o. Babulal Agarwal,
Mahavir Pada, Jayapatna, Dist.- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16884 of 2022
Kuldeep Kumar Agarwal, aged about 51 years, S/o. Sitaram Agarwal
Behind Minocha Petrol Pump, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16885 of 2022
Tamash Saha, aged about 45 years, S/o. Padmanava Saha, At.-
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 2 of 30
Laitara, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16886 of 2022
Rabi Narayan Pattnayak, aged about 45 years, S/o. Durga Madhab
Pattnayak, At.- Hatapada, P.O. Titilagarh, Dist.- Bolangir
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16887 of 2022
Ananda Kumar Agarwal, aged about 45 years, S/o. Budharam
Agarwal, At.- Kesinga, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16888 of 2022
Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, aged about 51 years, S/o. Sajjan Kumar
Agarwal, At- Kesinga, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16890 of 2022
Sukhalal Agarwal, aged about 51 years, S/o. Late Mulchand Agarwal,
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 3 of 30
At./P.O. Dhamagarh, Dist- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16891 of 2022
Jitendra Kumar Thakur, aged about 55 years, S/o. Late Sidheswar
Thakur, At.-Mandar, Bagchapada, Bhawanipatna, Dist.- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.19893 of 2022
Rakesh Kumar Bisi, aged about 45 years, S/o. Natabar Bisi, At- RK
Tour & Travels, P.O./P.S. Bhawanipatna, Dist.- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16894 of 2022
Rabi Narayan Pattnayak, aged about 45 years, S/o. Durga Madhab
Pattnayak, At. Hatapada, P.O. Titilagarh, Dist.- Bolangir
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16895 of 2022
Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, aged about 55 years, S/o. Late Kalaram
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 4 of 30
Agarwal, At/P.O. Kesinga, Dist- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16897 of 2022
Naresh Rana, aged about 45 years, S/o. Ganapati Rana, At-
Sindiekela, Dist.- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.16898 of 2022
Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, aged about 51 years, S/o. Sajjan Kumar
Agarwal, At. Kesinga, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist. Kalahandi.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.19947 of 2022
Haladhar Rout, aged about 45 years, S/o. B.M Rout, At./P.O.-
Lahuni, Dist.- Dhenkanal
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.19950 of 2022
M/s. Akshya Infra Pvt. Ltd. through its Proprietor Mr. S. Agarwal,
S/o. R. Agarwal, At.- Kesinga, P.O./P.S.- Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 5 of 30
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.19952 of 2022
Pruthiraj Ray, aged about 45 years, S/o. Radheshyam Ray, At.-
Gareipas, Dist.- Puri
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.19954 of 2022
Dibakar Mohapatra, aged about 45 years, S/o. Sudarsan Sahoo,
At./P.O. Gopinathpur, Rajsunakhal, Dist.- Nayagarh
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.19955 of 20225
Manoj Kumar Gupta, aged about 51 years, S/o. Late Gulab Chandra
Gupta, At-Mahavir Pada, Bhawanipatna, Dist.- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.19956 of 2022
Pradeep Kumar Jain, aged about 41 years, S/o. S. Jain, At./P.O.-
Sinapali, Dist.- Nuapada
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 6 of 30
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.19972 of 2022
Malaya Kumar Mund, aged about 55 years, W/o. Surendranath
Mund, At-Bhawanipatna, Dist.- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.19975 of 2022
Prakash Chandra Khilar, aged about 45 years, S/o. Debaraj Khilar,
At-Odasahi, Dist.- Nayagarh
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.19979 of 2022
Tirubala Parida, aged about 41 years, W/o. Dasarathi Parida, At-
Kesinga, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.27085 of 2022
Sabita Prusty, aged about 40 years, W/o. Makaranda Prusty, At/P.O.
Ishanendu Berhampur, Dist.- Balasore
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 7 of 30
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.27087 of 2022
Batakrushna Pradhan, aged about 45 years, S/o. Madha Pradhan,
At/P.O. Baliamunda, Dist.- Bhadrak
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.27089 of 2022
Batakrushna Pradhan, aged about 45 years, S/o. Madha Pradhan,
At/P.O. Baliamunda, Dist- Bhadrak
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.27092 of 2022
Chandramohan Giri, aged about 45 years, S/o. Late Gajendra Giri,
At/P.O. Ekada Jaleswar, Dist. Balasore
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.34108 of 2022
Susil Marjil Tete, aged about 45 years, S/o. Nuas Tete, At.-
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 8 of 30
Sahajabahal Bargaon, Dist.- Sundargarh
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.23893 of 2023
Aditya Narayan Mohanty, aged about 45 years, S/o. Laxman Kumar
Mohanty, At./P.O. Bhadrak, Dist- Bhadrak
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.25962 of 2023
Soudamini Swain, aged about 53 years, W/o. Benudhar Swain,
At./P.O. Bhagirathpur, P.S. Kamakhyanagar, Dist. Dhenkanal, Vehicle
No.OR-09-G-1954(TRUCK)
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.25965 of 2023
Narendra Kumar Das, aged about 53 years, S/o. Babaji Ch. Das, At.-
Sathipur, P.O.- Ranigoda, P.S.- Panikoili, Dist.- Jajpur, Vehicle No.
OR-09-F-0350(TRUCK)
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.25967 of 2023
Deepak Kumar Mahunta, aged about 48 years, S/o. Udaya Nath
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 9 of 30
Mahunta, At- Baruan, P.O. Bamuan, Tumusinga, Dist.- Dhenkanal,
Vehicle No.- OR-09-E-2069(TRUCK)
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.26148 of 2023
Kishan Kumar Karia, aged about 42 years, S/o. Kiran Kumar Karia,
Belapahar, Dist.- Jharsuguda
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.26149 of 2023
Santosh Kumar Majhi, aged about 42 years, S/o. Radhamohan Majhi,
Belapahar, Dist.- Jharsuguda
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.26152 of 2023
Santosh Kumar Majhi, aged about 42 years, S/o. Radhamohan Majhi,
Belapahar, Dist.- Jharsuguda
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.26155 of 2023
Kanaklata Panda, aged about 45 years, W/o. Rabi Naryan Panda,
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 10 of 30
At/P.O.- Baisinga, Dist.- Mayurbhanj
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.26156 of 2023
Ranjan Kumar Raj, aged about 45 years, S/o. Jagannath Raj, At/P.O.-
Singla, Mundal Baisinga, Dist.- Mayurbhanj
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.26159 of 2023
Somanath Badhei, aged about 42 years, S/o. Dolagobinda Badhei,
Laxman Pur, Dist.- Jharsuguda
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.26954 of 2023
Abdul Ohid Khan, aged about 40 years, S/o. Rasul Khan, At.-
Madhibrahmapur, P.O. Nuapattna, P.S.- Nimapada, Dist.- Puri, Vehicle
No.OR-19-D-5786(TRUCK)
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.27690 of 2023
Surendra Kumar Badra, aged about 55 years, s/o. Naik Badra, At.-
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 11 of 30
Panganal, P.O. Baliparbata, Dist.- Keonjhar, Vehicle No.OR-04-F-
3840(Hero Honda M/C)
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.27692 of 2023
Chandrasekhar Ojha, aged about 23 years, S/o. Kishore Kumar
Ojha, At.- Nanpur, P.O./P.S.- Balichandrapur, Dist.- Jajpur, Vehicle
No.OR-05-L-7263 (Hero Honda M/C)
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.32905 of 2023
M/s. Bajarangi Food Products Pvt. Ltd., through Director Trilok
Sundar Bajpayee, aged about 53 years, S/o. Chira Sundar Mishra, At.-
Darapada, P.O.- Kalyanpur, P.S.- Sarankul, Dist.- Nayagarh, Vehicle
No.OR-02-S-5789(VAN)
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.32907 of 2023
Bhimasen Pradhan, aged about 51 years, S/o. Binod Pradhan, At.-
Kadhamalla, P.O. Thanapalli, P.S. Baidyeswar, Dist. Nayagarh,
Vehicle No.OR-04-E-8228(TIPPER)
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 12 of 30
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.32908 of 2023
Aruna Kumar Pradhan, aged about 67 years, S/o. Debaraj Pradhan,
At.- Damodarpur, Patana, P.O.- Manibandha, P.S.- Begunia, Dist.-
Khordha, Vehicle No. OR-25-A-0271(TRUCK)
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.32910 of 2023
Trilok Sundar Bajpayee, aged about 53 years, S/o. Chira Sundar
Mishra, At.- Amalapada, Nayagarh College Road, P.O./P.S./Dist.-
Nayagarh, Vehicle No.-OR-23-8381(TRUCK)
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.34488 of 2023
Surendra Patra, aged about 41 years, S/o. Balabhadra Patra, At/P.O.-
Kunjabihari Prasad, Dist.- Nayagarh
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.36935 of 2023
Soham Das, aged about 25 years, S/o. Barada Prasana Das, At.-
Samanta Sahi, P.O. Buxibazar, P.S. Lalbag, Dist.- Cuttack, Vehicle
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 13 of 30
No.OR-02-M-6158 (TRUCK)
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.37871 of 2023
Mukesh Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 41 years, S/o. Late Ramsewak
Sahu, At-Rourkela, Rani Bagicha, Dist. Sundargarh
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.37872 of 2023
Pramod Kumar Choudhury, aged about 41 years, S/o. Damodar
Choudhury, At.- Aska Road, Dist.- Ganjam
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.39233 of 2023
Narayan Mallick, aged about 63 years, S/o. Late Bhanjakishore
Mallick, At.- Jobra Nuasahi, Malgodown, Dist.- Cuttack
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.6658 of 2024
Laxmidhar Sahoo, aged about 60 years, S/o. Baishnab Charan Sahoo,
At.- Jadumani Nagar, P.O./P.S./Dist.- Nayagarh, Vehicle No.-OR-15-
E-2701(TRUCK)
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 14 of 30
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.6679 of 2024
Anadi Das, aged about 37 years, S/o. Subal Das, At/P.O.- Ratapata,
P.S.- Badamba, Dist.- Cuttack, Vehicle No.OR-02-W-5532 (PICKUP)
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.6680 of 2024
Dilip Kumar Panda, aged about 23 years, S/o. Pravat Kumar Panda,
At.- Sunakhala, Nuasahi, P.O.- Bijipur, P.S.- Fategarh, Dist.-
Nayagarh, Vehicle No.-OR-02-AT-2596(TATA ACE)
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.14999 of 2024
Sumanta Mallick, aged about 41 years, S/o. Hrusi Mallick, At.- Baro,
Olatpur, Dist.- Cuttack
...Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and Others ...Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in these cases:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Subash Ch. Pani, Advocate
Mr. B.M. Sarangi, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Parhi,
Deputy Solicitor General
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 15 of 30
Mr. D.R. Bhokta, CGC
Mr. P.P. Behera, CGC
Mr. Manoj Ku. Pati, CGC
Mr. J. Naik, CGC
Mr. B.K. Pardhi, CGC
Ms. Babita Sahu, CGC
Ms. J. Sahoo, CGC
Mr. B. Maharana, CGC
Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, CGC
Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC
Mr. Pravakar Behera,
Standing Counsel (Transport)
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
26.11.2024
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ.
1. Since all these writ applications involve identical question of
law and facts, with the consent of the parties, they have been heard
together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment
and order.
2. The petitioners have put to challenge, in the present batch of
writ applications, the validity of Central Motor Vehicles (Twenty Third
Amendment) Rules, 2021 (the Amendment Rules, 2021 for short)
issued by a notification dated 04.10.2021 by the Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways, Government of India to the extent Rule 81 of
the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short, ‘CMV Rules) has
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 16 of 30
been amended by incorporating provision by way of substitution, for
levying additional fee in case of delay in applying for renewal of
certificate of registration (Sl. No.4 Note 2) and delay after expiry of
certificate of fitness of a vehicle (Note under Sl. No.11A) of the Table.
Rule 3 of the Amendment Rules, 2021 is being reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“3. In the said rules, in rule 81, –
(i) after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted,
namely: –
“Provided further that, in case the vehicle is registered on
submission of „‟Certificate of Deposit‟, the fee for issue of
certificate of registration shall not be levied.”;
(ii) in the TABLE,-
(a) For serial number (4) and the entries relating thereto, the
following shall be substituted, namely:-
Sr. Purpose Amount Rule Section
No.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
"4. Issue of certificates of 47(1)
registration and assignment 52(1)
of new registration mark or 54(1)
renewal of certificate of 76(1)
registration.- 78(1)
(a) Invalid carriage Fifty rupees
(b) Motor cycle:
(1) New registration (1)Three hundred
(2) Renewal of registration rupees
(2)One thousand rupees
(c) Three wheeler/
Quadricycle:
(1) Six hundred rupees
(1) New registration
(2) Renewal of registration (2) Two thousand five
hundred rupees
(d) Light motor vehicle:
(1) New registration (1) Six hundred rupees
(2) Renewal of registration (2) Five thousandWPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 17 of 30
rupees
(e) Medium Goods/ One thousand rupees
Passenger vehicle.
(f) Heavy Goods/ Passenger One thousand five
vehicle. - hundred rupees
(g) Imported motor vehicle
(Two/Three wheeled):
(1) Two thousand five
(1) New registration
hundred rupees
(2) Renewal of registration
(2) Ten thousand
rupees
(h) Imported motor vehicle
(Four or more wheeled):
(1) Five thousand
(1) New registration
rupees
(2)Renewal of registration
(2) Forty thousand
rupees
(i) Any other vehicle not
mentioned above
(1) New registration (1) Three thousand
(2) Renewal of registration rupees
(2) Six thousand rupees
Note 1: Additional fee of
two hundred rupees shall be
levied if the certificate of
registration is a smart card
type issued or renewed in
Form 23A.
Note 2: In case of delay in
applying for renewal of
certificate of registration,
an additional fee of three
hundred rupees for delay of
every month or part thereof
in respect of motor cycles
and five hundred rupees
for delay of every month or
part thereof in respect of
other classes of non-
transport vehicles shall be
levied.'';
(b) after serial number (10) and entries relating thereto, the following shall be
inserted, namely: –
"10A. Conducting test of a 62(2)
vehicle for grant and
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 18 of 30
renewal of certificate of
fitness for motor vehicles
older than 15 years:
(a) Motorcycle (i) Manual: Four
hundred rupees
(ii) Automated: Five
hundred rupees
(b) Three wheeled or (i) Manual: Eight
light motor vehicle or hundred rupees
quadricycle (ii) Automated: One
thousand rupees
(c) Medium goods / (i) Manual: Eight
passenger motor vehicle hundred rupees
(ii)Automated: One
thousand three
hundred rupees
(d) Heavy goods or (i) Manual: One
passenger motor vehicle thousand rupees
(ii) Automated: One
thousand five hundred
rupees.”;
(c) after serial number (11) and the entries relating thereto, the following shall
be inserted, namely: –
"11A. Grant or renewal of 62(2)
certificate of fitness for
motor vehicles (transport)
older than 15 years:
(a) Motorcycle One thousand rupees
(b) Three wheeled or Three thousand five
quadricycle hundred rupees
(c) light motor vehicle Seven thousand five
hundred rupees
(d) Medium goods or Ten Thousand rupees
passenger motor vehicle
(e) Heavy goods or Twelve thousand five
passenger motor vehicle hundred rupees
Note: Additional fee of fifty rupees for each day of delay after expiry of
certificate of fitness shall be levied.”
(Highlighted for emphasis)
2.1. The amendment Rules, 2021 have come into force with effect
from 01.04.2022, by operation of sub-rule 2 of Rule 1 thereof.
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 19 of 30
3. Rule 81 of the CMV Rules prescribes the fees leviable under
the provisions of Chapter-III (Registration of Motor Vehicles), as
specified in the table contained therein.
4. It is evident that the following amendment has been made to
levy additional fee in case of delay in applying for renewal of
certificate of registration:-
“(i) Sl. No.4-Note 2: In case of delay in applying for
renewal of certificate of registration, an additional fee
of three husband rupees for delay of every month or part
thereof in respect of motor cycles and five hundred
rupees for delay of every month or part thereof in
respect of other classes on non-transport vehicles shall
be levied.”
5. In relation to grant or renewal of certificate of fitness of motor
vehicles (transport) older than 15 years, a provision has been made for
additional fee of fifty rupees for each day of delay after expiry of
certificate of fitness. The amended Serial No.11A reads thus:-
“(ii) Sl No. 11A- Grant or renewal of certificate of fitness
for motor vehicles (transport) older than 15 years- Note-
Additional fee of fifty rupees for each day of delay after
expiry of certificate of fitness shall be levied.”
6. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.27960 of 2023 and 27962 of
2023 are aggrieved by imposition of additional fee under Sl. No.4
Note-2 in case of delay in renewal of registration certificate. The
imposition of additional fee in the case of renewal of fitness certificate
under Sl. No.11A-Note is under challenge in the rest of the cases.
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 20 of 30
7. We have heard Mr. Subash Chandra Pani and Mr. B.M.
Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P.K. Parhi,
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) for the Union of
India and Mr. P. Behera, learned Standing Counsel for the Transport
Department and Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Mr. P.P. Behera, Mr. Manoj Kumar
Pati, Mr. J. Naik, Mr. B.K. Pardhi, Ms. B. Sahoo, Ms. J. Sahoo, Mr. B.
Maharana, Mr. B.S. Rayguru and Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned Central
Government Counsel appearing for the respective opposite parties.
8. It is the common case of the petitioners that prior to issuance
of the impugned notification, a notification was issued by the
Government of India in 2016 revising the fee structure by imposing
additional fee, which notification was challenged before the Madras
High Court. A Division Bench of Madras High Court, by a judgment
rendered on 03.04.2017 in W.P. No.1598 of 2017 (Chennai City Auto
Ootunargal Sangam Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways), reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Mad. 1550 and batch
of cases had struck down the said 2016 notification to the extent, it had
sought to impose additional fee. A challenge to the judgment of
Madras High Court is pending adjudication by the Supreme Court. It is
further case of the petitioners that in the light of the Madras High Court
decision in the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam
(supra), this High Court had quashed the said notification in the case of
Dinabandhu Sahoo v. Union of India (AIR 2019 Orissa 110). Other
High Courts had also quashed the notification as was done by the
Madras High Court in the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal
Sangam (supra).
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 21 of 30
9. Referring to various provisions of the MV Act and the CMV
Rules, he has submitted that in exercise of powers conferred under
Sections 28, 65, 96, 111 and 138 of the MV Act, the State of Odisha
has already made Odisha Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993 (in short, ‘OMV
Rules’), Chapter III of which deals with registration of motor vehicles.
He has submitted that Rule 22 (6) of the OMV Rules prescribes that an
application for renewal of the certificate of fitness shall be made in
Form-II not less than thirty days before the date of expiry of the
certificate and the owner or the person in control of the vehicle shall
cause the vehicle to be produced for inspection on such date and at
such time and place as appointed under Sub-rule (4) thereof. Sub-rule
(7) of Rule 22 of the OMV Rules further lays down that if the owner or
the person in control of the vehicle fails to make an application under
sub-rule (6) of the said Rules, he shall be liable to pay a penalty of
Rs.500/- in addition to the fees prescribed for renewal of fitness
certificate and inspection of motor vehicle. The proviso to sub-rule (7)
empowers the Registering Authority to condone the delay in making
the application, if it is satisfied that the owner or the person in control
of the vehicle was prevented to make such application within the
stipulated period on medical grounds.
10. Rule 34(1) of the OMV Rules prescribes “charges for delayed
registration or renewal. The said Rule reads as under:
“34. Charges for delayed registration or renewal.
(1) If the owner of a vehicle fails to make an application
for registration under Sub-section (1) or for renewal of
certificate of registration under Sub-section (8) of section
41, within the period prescribed under Rules 47 and 52WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 22 of 30
respectively of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989,
the registering authority may having regard to the
circumstances of the case, require the owner to pay, in
lieu of any action that may be taken against him under
section 177, an amount of rupees twenty-five for the
delay extending up to thirty days, rupees fifty for the
delay for any period exceeding thirty days up to ninety
days and rupees one hundred for the delay for any period
exceeding ninety days.”
He has, accordingly, submitted that since Rules have already
been framed under OMV Rules for processing delayed application for
renewal of fitness certificate and renewal of registration certificate by
way of delegation of power under Section 65 of the MV Act to the
State Government, in absence of any amendment in the MV Act, the
Union of India does not have the competence to impose additional fee
and, therefore, the said notification is liable to be struck down.
11. Referring to the decision in the case of Madras High Court in
Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra), he has submitted that
it has been clearly held, dealing with the earlier 2016 notification, that
the provisions of the MV Act do not provide for levy of fines in the
above circumstances. Contrary to the law laid down by the Madras
High Court in Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra), the
Union of India has issued the impugned notification without any
amendment in the MV Act.
12. It may, however, be noted at this juncture that in a recent
decision dated April 2, 2024 in Public Interest Litigation No.130 of
2022 (‘K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha v. Union of India),
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 23 of 30
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom. 970, a Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court has interpreted Section 211 of the MV Act and
has held that the said provision vests power with the Central
Government to make Rules providing for levy of additional fee for
processing delayed applications for certain purposes, such as, for
seeking renewal of driving license, renewal of registration certificate of
a vehicle, change of residence and transfer of ownership of vehicle.
The Bombay High Court has, accordingly, held that levy of additional
fees in this case, is in no manner a penalty, either directly or in
disguise. The Bombay High Court, for reaching the said conclusion,
has relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in the case Jalkal Vibhag
Nagar Nigam Vs. Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation,
reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 960 and Sona Chandi Oal
Committee and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2005) 2
SCC 345 and has concluded that levy of additional fee as prescribed
under the provisions of 1980 Rules cannot be said to be any kind of
deterrence rather, by making the provision for consideration of delayed
application for renewal of driving license, registration of certificate of
vehicle etc., the CMV Rules provide a facility to the vehicle owners’ or
drivers to seek renewal of registration of motor vehicle or driving
license beyond the time limit prescribed for such purpose. The Bombay
High Court has held in the case of K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw
Sangha (supra) that charge of additional fee is not a penalty.
13. Mr. Pani, learned counsel has submitted that said decision of
Bombay High Court in the case of K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw
Sangha (supra) lays down an incorrect law by misinterpreting Section
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 24 of 30
211 of the MV Act. He has argued that when there is no ambiguity or
absurdity in the language of the statute, there is no question of
interpretation. Section 211 of the MV Act has no application to the
present case as the notification in question has been issued under
Section 64 of the MV Act and, therefore, the decision rendered by the
Bombay High Court does not lay down the correct law. He has
submitted that the decision of Madras High Court in the case of
Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra) has been followed by
this Court in the case of Dinabandhu Sahu (supra) and, therefore,
applying the legal reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of Madras
High Court in the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam
(supra) this Court should declare the impugned provisions under the
Amendment Rules as illegal and beyond jurisdiction.
14. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has
submitted that the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of
K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha (supra) is the legally correct
view. This Court in the present batch of writ applications may not take
a different view than what has been taken by the Bombay High Court
in the case of K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha (supra) while
interpreting the same set of Central Legislation which apply across the
country. He has, accordingly, submitted that these applications should
be disposed of in terms of the law laid down by the Bombay High
Court.
15. The only question which has arisen in the present batch of writ
applications, in the light of the aforementioned circumstances is,
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 25 of 30
whether we should follow the view taken by the Madras High Court in
Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra) based on which a
Division Bench of this Court had disposed of batch of writ applications
in Dinabandhu Sahu (supra) or, should decline to entertain the
challenge to Amendment Rules considering the fact that a Division
Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of K’ Savakash Auto
Rickshaw Sangha (supra) has upheld the validity of the said
Amendment Rules of 2021.
16. The Madras High Court in the case of Chennai City Auto
Ootunargal Sangam (supra), had the occasion to consider the question
of the competence of fixing new fees structure by amending Rules 32
and 81 of the CMV Rules to the extent the same related to levy of
additional fees, as the core issue. It appears from this Court’s decision
in the case of Dinabandhu Sahu (supra) that the petitioners in that
case relied on the Madras High Court’s decision in the case of Chennai
City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra) on the simple reasoning that
unless the provisions in question were struck down, there would be
different applications of the same provision in the State of Tamil Nadu
and the State of Odisha, which is impermissible in view of Article
226(2) of the Constitution of India. Accepting the said contention, this
Court in Dinabandhu Sahu (supra) held in paragraphs 11 and 12 as
under:
“11. In view of the fact stated above, the impugned
Notification No.1183 (E) dated 29/12/2016, more
particularly, entry at Sl.No.11, Column No.3 of the
table to Rule 81, which has been issued by the Central
Government, is travelling beyond the scope of Act andWPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 26 of 30
the same is without authority of law. Therefore, the
contentions of the petitioners are required to be
accepted and the same is accepted in view of the fact
that the notification has already been quashed and set
aside by the Madras High Court. In view of operation
of law the same is applicable to the State of Odisha
also.
Further, in view the observations made by the Madras
High Court in its order/judgment delivered in Textile
Technical Tradesmen Association (supra) and Chennai
City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra), the notification
is required to be quashed and set aside, therefore, the
same is quashed and set aside.
12. The parties are directed to abide by the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since the Central
Government has already challenged the impugned
judgment of Madras High Court, they are not required
to challenge this order. However, if the petitioners
want to intervene in the application pending before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is open to the petitioners to
intervene and prefer appropriate application to plead
the case before the Supreme Court.”
17. However, after having discussed the provisions under Sections
110 and 211 of the MV Act, the Bombay High Court in the case of K’
Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha (supra) held in paragraphs 15 and
17 as under:
“15. The Motor Vehicles Act has been enacted to take
into account and provide for road transport
technology, pattern of passenger and freight
movements, development of road net work in the
country and improved techniques in motor vehicle
management. The power extended to Government in
terms of sec.211 of the Act is for the levy of a fee as a
quid pro quo for services offered by officers orWPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 27 of 30
authorities under the Act. The fee prescribed is thus
designed to be commensurate to the service rendered
by the authority. We fail to see any justification for the
levy of an additional fee in the nature of the penalty
when there is no change in the nature of service
rendered by the authority under the Act particularly in
the absence of any statutory backing for the same. The
purpose, as is apparent from the recommendation of
the committee is the fond hope that such levy would act
as a deterrent for non-compliance of various
provisions. Such non-compliance is however, a matter
to be addressed using such powers as have been
extended to the authorities. The Motor Vehicles
Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules at present,
only contain a provision authorizing the levy of a fee
and nothing more. In this connection, we may refer to
the judgement of the Supreme Court in re. State of
U.P. and others Vs. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd and
others (AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4650) wherein there
was a challenge to the levy of a fee on denaturalisation
of alcohol. The Bench, quashing the levy, states as
follows:
44. The question is (to borrow the language in
Synthetics) whether in the garb of regulations a
legislation, which is in pith and substance, as we look
upon the instant legislation, a fee or levy which has no
connection with the cost or expenses administering the
regulation, can be imposed purely as a regulatory
measure, Judged by the pith and substance of the
impugned legislation, we are definitely of the opinion
that these levies cannot be treated as part of
regulatory measures.
xxx xxx xxx
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the
levy of additional fee under various heads as per the
impugned notification is without authority and such
levy of additional fee is, therefore, liable to be struck
down.”
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 28 of 30
18. The Bombay High Court in the case of K’ Savakash Auto
Rickshaw Sangha (supra) has considered the Madras High Court’s
decision rendered in Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra)
and has held in paragraph 24 as under:
“24. With all respect at our command to the
judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of
Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra), we
may observe that the said judgment does not attempt
to interpret Section 211 of the parent Act, specially,
the interpretation which can be ascribed to Section
211 on account of occurrence of the phrases (a)
“notwithstanding the absence of any express
provision to that effect” and (b) “and for any other
purpose or matter involving the rendering of any
services”.
After noticing the law laid down by the Madras High Court in
the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra), the
Bombay High Court in a recent decision in the case of K’ Savakash
Auto Rickshaw Sangha (supra) has conclusively held that Section 211
of the MV Act vests power with the Central Government to make
Rules providing for levy of additional fee for processing delayed
applications for certain purposes such as seeking renewal of driving
licence, renewal of registration certificate of a vehicle, change of
residence and transfer of ownership of a vehicle. Taking a different
view than what was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of
Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra), the Bombay High
Court has held that levy of additional fee is in no manner a penalty,
either directly or in disguise.
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 29 of 30
19. The principle of comity requires that the Courts of one State
or jurisdiction will give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of
another State or jurisdiction, not as a matter of obligation but out of
deference and mutual respect. In Neon Laboratories Vs. Medical
Technologies Limited, reported in (2016) 2 SCC 672, the Supreme has
reiterated that every High Court must give due deference to the
enunciation of law made by another High Court, even though it is free
to charter a divergent direction. Judicial comity is recognized as an
integral part of judicial discipline and judicial discipline is the corner
stone of the judicial integrity.
20. In the present case, since the Bombay High Court has already
taken view on the competence of the Central Government to impose
additional fees under Rules 32 and 81 of the CMV Rules, we decline to
entertain the challenge to the impugned notification on the ground of
incompetence of the Central Government to impose additional tax, in
the aforesaid background.
21. All these writ applications are, accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)
Chief Justice
Savitri Ratho, J. I agree.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
SK Jena/Secy.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA
Designation: SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 26-Nov-2024 17:39:56
WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 30 of 30