K M SIRAJ Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Constitutional validity of Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, introduced by the Motor Vehicle Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2005, Act 24 of 2005 and Section 15 of the Act are under challenge before us on the ground that they are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and are also vitiated by colourable exercise of power and hence unconstitutional and void.

(2.) Petitioners are aggrieved by the insistence for the production of certificate of remittance of contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 as a pre condition for receiving motor vehicle tax under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. Sub-section (7) of Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act stipulates that proof of remittance of contribution to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund upto the preceding month should be produced for receipt of motor vehicle tax Sub-section (8) states that no tax under the Act shall be collected unless the receipt of remittance of contribution towards welfare fund as stated in Sub-section (7) is produced. Petitioners submit that Act 24 of 2005 which has brought in Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is unconstitutional since no Presidential assent under Article 304(b) was obtained before introducing those sections and is in direct conflict with Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents cubmitted that there is no repugnancy between the provisions of Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 of Act 24 of 2005. Counsel submitted that Motor Vehicles Act 1988 provides for regulation of operation of vehicle and registration of vehicle etc. Since the legislations fall under different lists there is no repugnancy between the two legislations and therefore no assent of the President is required under Article 254(2) of the Constitution in support of the contention reference was made to the decisions of the apex court in M.P.V. Sundaramier & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh,1958 AIR(SC) 4681 State of U.P. and Anr. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Anr.,1991 4 SC 139 and Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1985 154 ITR 64. Counsel also submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act has already received the assent of the President and there is no other Act promulgated by the Central Government on that subject and that assent of the President was given for the Motor Workers Welfare Fund Act, not for the purpose of Articles 254, but for the purpose of Article 304(b) of the Constitution. Contesting respondents also pointed out that Act 23 of 2005 was promulgated as a regulatory measure laying down the mode of recovery of such contribution and it is well within the prerogative of the State Legislature and cannot be struck down on the plea that it is contrary to Article 245 of the Constitution of India.