DINABANDHU SAHOO Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of all these writ petitions, the petitioners, who are owners of the respective vehicles, have challenged the Notification No.1183 (E) dated 29/12/2016 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, Government of India amending Rule 81 of the Central Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') levying additional fees of fifty rupees for renewal of fitness certificate for each day of delay after expiry of fitness certificate which was incorporated at Column No.3 at Sl.No.11 of the table.

(2.) Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the levy of additional fee of fifty rupees for each day of delay after expiry of certificate of fitness for renewal has been introduced by way of amendment of the Motor Vehicle Rules, particularly the entry at Sl.No.11, Column No.3 of the Table of Rule 81 issued by the Government of India. It is vehemently argued that the aforesaid notification is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive and unconstitutional and the same violates Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the same is liable to be struck down to the extent of imposition of additional fee as stated above and the same may be declared to be void in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the parties also argue that in view of Honourable Madras High Court decision, the charging of additional fees is also required to be declared void and struck down.

(3.) Learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1-Union of India has filed counter affidavit denying the claim of the petitioners. Relevant portions of the said counter affidavit are reproduced hereunder: