Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22598 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Singh,Durgesh Kumar Singh,Greesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Rajesh Tripathi
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the realization of additional fee in pursuance of Rule 32 and 81 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as amended vide notification dated 29.12.2016.
The validity of the notification dated 29.12.2016 was challenged before the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.1598 of 2017 (Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Union Government, New Delhi & others). The said writ petition was finally decided by the Madras High Court vide its judgment and order dated 3.4.2017. By the aforesaid order notification by which amendments were made in the Rules 32 and 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,1989 to the extent of imposition of additional fee was declared void and consequently the same was struck down. The operative portion of the judgment of Madras High Court is quoted below-
"In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the levy of additional fee under various heads as per the impugned notification is without authority and such levy of additional fee is, therefore, liable to be struck down.
In the result, the writ petitions are partly allowed and the impugned notification of the first respondent amending Rule 32 and Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules to the extent of the imposition of additional fee is declared void and consequently the same is to that extent struck down. No costs. Consequently, all the Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."
Learned Standing counsel informs that in view of the Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court dated 3.4.2017 the State Government had decided not to implement the said notifications amending the fees in the State of U.P..
The Commissioner Transport, U.P., has issued a notification dated 29.4.2019 to convey the above decision opining that since the notification dated 29.12.2016 stands struck down by the Madras High Court, the same will not be implemented in the State of U.P..
Accordingly, when the above notification is not being applied in U.P., there is nothing left to be decided in this petition and the same stands disposed off with the direction that any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notification shall be refunded on the application of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Nirmal