MAHADEV FITNESS CENTER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking directions to the respondents for renewal of their Letter of Authority (LoA) issued by competent authority, under Rule 63 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short "the Rules of 1989"), for operating Fitness Testing Station ('FTS') established to issue or renew a certificate of fitness to a transport vehicle as envisaged under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988"). In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners have also questioned the validity of Motor Vehicle Fitness Testing Station Regulation Scheme 2018 (FIJA-2018) published by the State Government vide order No. 13/18 dated 24.4.18. That apart, in a few petitions, the legality of order issued by the prescribed authority rejecting the application for establishment/renewal of FTS is also impugned.

(2.) The facts relevant are that the petitioners were granted LoA to operate FTS to issue or renew fitness to a transport vehicle under Rule 63 of the Rules of 1989 for a period of five years. The eligibility to operate FTS and the infrastructure required for operating private FTS at the relevant time were governed by FIJA- 2011, a scheme for regulation of vehicle fitness verification centres published by the State Government. The scheme FIJA- 2011 now stands substituted by the scheme FIJA-2018, which has been framed by the State Government while following the norms laid down by the Government of India for periodic auditing and operation supervision of Inspection and Certification Centres by Executing Agency, vide circular dated 3.7.15. The petitioners, who were earlier granted the LoA for operating the FTS are not granted the renewal inasmuch as, they have not fulfilled the requirement to operate the FTS as specified under FIJA-2018.

(3.) Mr. H.R. Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that new scheme FIJA-2018 issued by the State Government providing for upgrading of the FTS as per the norms laid down runs contrary to the provisions of Rule 62 to 65 of the Rules of 1989. Learned counsel submitted that as per Rule 126 of the Rules of 1989, every manufacturer is required to submit a prototype of vehicle, which is subject to testing by Central Government Agency or the other agencies as may be specified by the Central Government, however, under the new scheme FIJA- 2018, the provision is made for inspection and audit of FTS by other agencies without any basis and thus, the scheme FIJA-2018 being in conflict with the provisions of Rule 126 of the Rules of 1989 cannot be permitted to operate. Drawing the attention of the court to clause 4(e) of FIJA-2018, learned counsel submitted that it requires vehicle fitness testing centre to obtain certificate regarding installation of machinery at the fitness centre from a particular agency selected for testing the vehicle or its prototype whereas, machinery is installed by the manufacturing company itself and further inspection of the FTS is conducted by the respondents as well and thus, the provision made for a third party inspection report which is given after charging lacs of rupees as fee, is ex facie illegal. Learned counsel submitted that in the list of common equipments provision for calibration equipment is mentioned for installation in the FTS whereas, no such requirement of calibration equipment is set out in the Rules of 1989 and therefore, when the equipments were installed and calibrated by the manufacturer of the equipments and inspection and testing is being done by the respondent authorities, there is no point in installation of the calibration set in the fitness centre. Learned counsel submitted that FIJA-2018 provides for calibration of toolset generator and computer whereas, the same is not at all required. It is submitted that there is no necessity of wheel alignment machine and scanner because these are equipments of workshop and not of the FTS, however, these equipments have been wrongly and arbitrarily included in the list of machinery and therefore, the new scheme FIJA-2018 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel submitted that new scheme FIJA-2018 provides for third party audit of vehicle fitness centre after every two years by the third party auditors selected by the respondents. It is submitted that the respondents are conducting regular audits of the FTS and it is the duty of the respondents to conduct the audit and therefore, no third party audit is required to be done, which will cost lacs of rupees to the petitioners and their likes. Further, there is no provision for third party audit in the Rules of 1989 and thus, the Scheme FIJA-2018 framed being dehors the Rules of 1989, deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count alone.