RAKESH SETHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the validity of r. 55-A inserted in the M. P. Motor Vehicles rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'rules of 1994') vide Notification (Annexure P/l)dated 15-2-2001, petitioner has filed this petition seeking a declaration to the effect that the aforesaid rule is ultra vires to S. 64 read with S. 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'act of 1988')and is also violative of Art. 14, of the Constitution of India.

(2.) PETITIONER claims to be owner of a motor-cycle purchased by him sometime in may, 2004 and for the registration of which the requisite application, in Form No. 20, prescribed under the Rules of 1944 was submitted on 25-5-2004 before respondent No. 4. Vide order dated 27-5-2004, respondent no. 4 rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that prayer made by the petitioner for allotment of registration number 'mp-KL-4646' cannot be accepted, as the petitioner has not paid the requisite fee prescribed for allotment of the aforesaid number. It is the case of the petitioner that instead of allotting the aforesaid number prayed for, petitioner has been allotted number MP20-KL-5100, against his wishes. Inter alia contending that allotment of a particular number on payment of the prescribed fee as provided in Rule 55-A is contrary to and inconsistent to the provisions of S. 41 and the powers conferred on the State Government to frame Rules under S. 65 of the act of 1988, challenge is made to the amendment incorporated in the Rules of 1994 by the aforesaid notification.

(3.) SHRI Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior advocate for the petitioner, placing reliance on the provisions of S. 41 (2) of the Act of 1988, emphasised that the power to prescribe fee for registration of a motor vehicle is conferred on the Central Government, prescribing a higher fee for registration with an option to seek reservation of a particular number, is beyond the competence of the state Government. Learned senior counsel argued that under S. 64 of the Act of 1988, power to fix the fee and formulate rules for the purposes of registration of motor vehicle is conferred on the Central Government and the State Government under S. 65 of the act of 1988 is not empowered to fix any fee to be paid for registration of a motor vehicle. It is emphasised by him that the State Government can only make provision with regard to the amount to be recovered under sub-section (13) of S. 41 and not under subsection (1) of S. 41. It is argued that the impugned Notification issued exercising powers under S. 65 read with S. 211 of the act of 1988 is unsustainable. Shri Rajendra tiwari, learned senior Advocate, argued that the power under S. 211 can be exercised only for levy of such fee in respect of the various items contemplated therein only when the State Government is empowered under the Act to frame Rules to give effect to the provision for levy of such fee. It was submitted that when the power to levy fee for registration is conferred on the Central government and when fee is already fixed under R. 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles rules, 1989, the State Government is not empowered to fix any further fee for the purpose of registration of a motor vehicle by exercising powers under S. 211. Inter alia contending that the fee fixed for allotment of registration mark by permitting reservation of a particular number is unsustainable and beyond the powers vested in the state Government, Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior Advocate, prays for interference into the matter. Further contention is that the guidelines prescribed and the procedure contemplated for reservation of registration numbers is arbitrary and would result in granting undue benefit to certain class of persons and denying benefit to others similarly situated. Accordingly on these grounds learned senior counsel prays for interference into the matter.