ARJUNSINGH GANESHRAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel.

(2.) VIRES or no vires, the matter need not prolong any further in this Court. We have been hearing time and again that the vires of Rule 88 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 is being considered at the Main Seat. We have taken a different view on examination of the provisions of Section 59 of the New Act and reading that along with Section 217 of the Act. Obviously, Rule 88 was framed to give effect to the provisions of Section 59 and that position is being kept in view. We extract the Rule : - -

(3.) SECTION 217(2)(b) is a saving clause under the New Act and that lends meaning to the construction of Rule 88 which has appealed to us. Legislatures clear intention is manifested, not to affect validity of any 'certificate of fitness or registration or licence or permit issued or granted under the repealed enactment.' That clearly excludes, in our view, scope of attributing retrospectivity to Rule 88 of the New Rules framed under the New Act.