SRISH CHANDRA BOSE, SECRETARY, CUTTACK MOTOR ASSOCIATION AND ANR. Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND EX-OFFICIO REGISTERING AUTHORITY OF MOTOR VEHICLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 2 is the owner of Bus No. O.R.C. 26 Cuttack and a member of Cuttack Motor Association. Petitioner No. 1 is the Secretary of that' Association. Some time in March, 1954 Petitioner No. 2 applied to the Superintendent of Police Cuttack (Registering Authority) for renewal of the certificate of fitness in respect of the said vehicle and long with that application sent the necessary fee of Rs. 25/. The application was forwarded to the Inspector of Motor Vehicles for disposal. The owner produced the vehicle for inspection on the 20th of May 1954. After inspecting the vehicle bile Inspector of Motor Vehicles communicated she following order to the owner.

(2.) THE facts all admitted and the case depends on a construction of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 22(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits the driving a motor vehicle in a public place for the purpose of carrying passengers or good's unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with Chapter III of the Act. Sub -section (1) of Section 38 further says that no such motor vehicle shall be deemed to be validly registered unless it carries a certificate of fitness in Form H as set forth in the First Schedule to the Act, issued by the prescribed authority. That Sub -section further says that where the prescribed authority refusal to issue such certificate of fitness it shall supply to the owner of the vehicle ita reasons for snob refusal. Sub -section (3) of that section confers powers on the prescribed authority to cancel a certificate of fitness at any time if it is satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of the Acts and the rules made thereunder. On such cancellation the registration certificate and other permits given to the vehicle shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate is obtained. Section 41 confers power on the State Government to make rules and Clause (f) of Sub -section (2) of that section expressly says that the rule -making power includes the power to prescribe fees for the issue of certificates of fitness and fur the examination or inspection of motor vehicles and the refund of such fees.

(3.) ON a fair reading of Sub -clause (h) of Rule 32 and Rule 46 it seems clear that the fee of Rs. 25/ - that is required to be deposited by the applicant is primarily meant to cover the expenses of inspection of the vehicle. That seems to be the main reason why if the application for renewal is refused the fee is not refundable if the inspection has been carried out. Otherwise it is refund able. On behalf of the Government the learned Advocate -General therefore contended that the purpose for which the original fee of Rs. 25/ - was paid by the applicant was fully discharged when the vehicle was inspected by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles on the 20th of May, 1954 and when he passed an order refusing to renew the certificate. Hence if the applicant wanted the vehicle to be again inspected on the 25th of May 1954 as directed by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles such an inspection would, in essence, be an inspection in respect of a fresh application for renewal and therefore by virtue of Sub -clause (h) of Rule 82, a fresh fee of Rs. 25/ - was payable.