IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.13694 – 13695/2019 c/w W.P.Nos.23596 – 23597/2019 (MV) IN W.P.Nos.13694 – 13695/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVANNA S/O KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT IKKADAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDINDUVADI POST, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 441.
2. NANJUNDA SWAMY S/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.12/172, BUDITHITTU VILLAGE, KUNAGALLI POST, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 440 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI MOHAMMED DASTAGIR, ADV.] AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, NO.1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, TTMC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR -571 313 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI MADANAN PILLAI R., ADV. FOR R-1; SMT.KAVITHA H.C., HCGP FOR R-2 & R-3.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT DATED 29.12.2016 AS AT ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR THEY RELATE TO LEVY OF ADDITIONAL FEE FOR BELATED APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWAL OF DRIVING LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID.
IN W.P.Nos.23596 – 23597/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. Mr. SYED TAJAMUL S/O LATE S.A.REHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.2214, GANDHINAGAR, MANDYA-571401 2. Mr. SYED ILIYAS PASHA S/O Mr. SYED JALAL, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.3918, 10TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MANDYA-571401 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI B.R.S.GUPTA, ADV.] AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORTS AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORTS TTMC BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR, SHANTHINAGARA BENGALURU-560027 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY, MANDYA-571401 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI IRFANA NAZEER, ADV. FOR R-1; SMT.KAVITHA H.C., HCGP FOR R-2 & R-3.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.12.2016 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 29.12.2016 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PRESCRIBING PAYMENT OF FINE OF RS.300/- PER MONTH IN CASE OF TWO WHEELER VEHICLES AND RS.500/- PER MONTH FOR LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLES FOR ANY DELAY IN FILING AN APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER ITEM NO.4 NOTE-2.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R These writ petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been considered together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners in W.P.No.13694-695/2019 have assailed the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (Twenty – Second amendment) gazetted vide Notification dated 29.12.2016 insofar as they relate to levy of additional fees for belated applications for renewal of Driving Licences and registration of motor vehicles, Rules 32 and 81 respectively, inter alia, seeking a direction to the respondents to renew the Driving Licence of petitioner No.1 and to renew the registration of Motorcycle bearing No.KA-09-EB-6307 of petitioner No.2 without insisting for payment of additional fee as prescribed in the Notification dated 29.12.2016.
3. Petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.13694-695/2019 is claiming to be the holder of a Driving Licence valid from 10.02.2005 to 25.10.2016. The said Driving Licence authorises petitioner No.1 to drive motorcycles with gear. It is submitted that on expiry of the Driving Licence on 24.10.2016, petitioner No.1 was not driving any motor vehicle and hence he did not approach the authorities for renewal of the Driving Licence. However, petitioner No.1 approached the authorities by uploading his application for renewal of his Driving Licence and also making the payment towards the fees prescribed under Rule 32 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (‘CMV Rules’ for short). It transpires, the respondents insisted for the additional fees in terms of the amendment brought to Rule 32 of the CMV Rules in terms of the Notification dated 29.12.2016.
4. Similarly, petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.13694- 695/2019 claiming to be the owner of a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing registration NoKA-09-EB- 6307 approached the Office of respondent No.3 with an application for renewal of registration subsequent to the expiry of its validity on 05.08.2018, wherein he was asked to pay the renewal fees along with additional fee for the belated application for renewal of the Registration Certificate. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the amendment to Rules 32 and 81 of the CMV Rules insofar as the levy of additional fees is concerned.
5. As regards W.P.Nos.23596-597/2019, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the amendment of Rule 81 of the CMV Rules by the Notification dated 29.12.2016.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (‘Act’ for short) does not authorise the respondents to levy and collect the additional fees as contemplated in the impugned amendment. Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras submitted that the said Notification dated 29.12.2016 was considered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras and the said impugned Notification amending Rules 32 and 81 of the CMV Rules to the extent of imposition of additional fees is declared void and consequently the same is to that extent struck down. In view of the said decision, the amendment brought to the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 requires to be struck down insofar as the Rules 32 and 81 are concerned. Learned counsel submitted that no additional services are rendered by the officers/authorities for levying the additional fees in granting Driving Licence/Registration Certificate pertaining to the application filed by the petitioners beyond the expiry period. Inviting the attention of this Court to Section 211 of the Act, it was submitted that the fee should be levied for rendering any services by the officers/authorities under the Act. Quid pro quo being the necessary ingredient for levying fees, the same should be established by justifiable means to levy additional fees. The additional fee levied is in the nature of penalty, which is nothing but a measure of deterrent which cannot be imposed without the authority of law. Provisions of Rule 37 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules was also referred, to contend that the fees is levied and collected by the said authorities for the Registration Certificates renewed belatedly, inter alia, Sections 41(8), 41(11) and 41(13) of the Act were also referred in support of the submission that the State Government is authorised and accordingly is levying fees towards the renewal of the Registration Certificate in addition to the fees prescribed under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules by the Central Government in terms of Rule 81 of the CMV Rules.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has filed the counter affidavit justifying the amendments of Rules 32 and 81 of the CMV Rules impugned herein. Learned counsel would submit that the Ministry had constituted a Committee under the chairmanship of Secretary (Transport), Government of Maharashtra to consider the revision of rates of fee for various activities/services under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. Based on the recommendation of the Committee, the Ministry had notified the draft Rules inviting the objections/suggestions from the public/stakeholders. Thereafter, the draft Rules were finalized vide Notification dated 29.12.2016 amending Rules 32 and 81 of the CMV Rules. By this amendment, the fees charged by the Authorities for service as provided by the respective Regional Transport Officers were revised. The Ministry had further issued Notification dated 21.03.2017 by which the State Governments were empowered to lower the fees as they may decide. Respondent No.1 has challenged the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Special Leave Petition No.023648/2017 (Civil Appeal No.11216/2017) and the same is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus, it is submitted that the power to levy fees under the Rules 32 and 81 of the CMV Rules empowers the Government to levy additional fees also. Learned counsel submits that the said Rules have been amended in exercise of powers conferred under Section 110 of the Act. Hence, the amendment to the CMV Rules imposing the additional fees cannot be faulted with.
8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. It is significant to note that cognate bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.10490-499/2017 had the occasion to consider the said Notification dated 29.12.2016 published in the Gazette insofar as it relates to the prescription of payment of fine of Rs.50/- per day for the delay in filing the application for renewal of the Fitness Certificate as provided in item No.11 of the said Notification. This Court placing reliance on the Division Bench decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras held that the levy of additional fee for grant of renewal of Certificate of Fitness is without authority of law and deserves to be struck down and is accordingly struck down. The renewal of Fitness Certificate is therefore directed to be considered by the authorities de hors the same if the other requirements are satisfied. In the light of the said decision of this Court as well as the Division Bench ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, where the very same Notification dated 29.12.2016 has been considered in respect of Rules 32 and 81 of the CMV Rules, it has been categorically held that no source of power is vested with the Central Government to levy additional fees as sought to be levied. Such fees being levied without authority of law, the same has been struck down.
10. Keeping the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Courts in mind, the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the CMV Rules and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules are examined. The objections of respondent No.1 no doubt refers to the Committee constituted by the Ministry to analyze and propose for some recommendation inasmuch as levy of fees, the said report of the Committee has been duly considered by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras which has been extracted in paragraph No.13 of the said judgment and the finding on that issue has made out in paragraph Nos.14 and 15, the same is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
“14. Thus the suggestion of the committee for the levy of a fine is itself, and rightly, subject to the amendment of the Act to provide for such levy. The purpose behind the suggestion is on the ground that it would deter the plying of vehicles without required documentation and compliances. Such purpose would however, have to be achieved taking recourse to the available methods. The present proposal for the levy of a fine is clearly without the requisite authority. Indeed the observation of the committee extracted above with the specific suggestion for amendment makes this position clear and unambiguous.
15. The Motor Vehicles Act has been enacted to take into account and provide for road transport technology, pattern of passenger and freight movements, development of road net work in the country and improved techniques in motor vehicle management. The power extended to Government in terms of sec. 211 of the Act is for the levy of a fee as quid pro quo for services offered by officers or authorities under the Act. The fee prescribed is thus designed to be commensurate to the service rendered by the authority. We fail to see any justification for the levy of an additional fee in the nature of the penalty when there is no change in the nature of service rendered by the authority under the Act particularly in the absence of any statutory backing for the same. The purpose, as is apparent from the recommendation of the committee is the fond hope that such levy would act as a deterrent for non-compliance of various provisions. Such non-compliance is however, a matter to be addressed using such powers as have been extended to the authorities. The Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules at present, only contain a provision authorizing the levy of a fee and nothing more. In this connection, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in re. State of U.P. and others Vs. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd and others (AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4650) wherein there was a challenge to the levy of a fee on denaturalization of alcohol. The Bench, quashing the levy, states as follows:
“44. The question is (to borrow the language in Synthetics) whether in the garb of regulations a legislation, which is in pith and substance, as we look upon the instant legislation, a fee or levy which has no connection with the cost or expenses administering the regulation, can be imposed purely as a regulatory measure, Judged by the pith and substance of the impugned legislation, we are definitely of the opinion that these levies cannot be treated as part of regulatory measures.”
11. In view of the discussion made as aforesaid, it is perspicuous that the recommendation of the Committee is with the hope of providing the deterrent measure for non-compliance of various provisions but the same has to be in line with the provisions of the Act and CMV Rules, necessarily requires to be addressed keeping in mind the provisions of the Act and CMV Rules. Ex-facie it appears that there is no authority of law to levy the additional fees by amending Rules 32 and 81 of the CMV Rules.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions stand allowed and the impugned Notification of respondent No.1 amending Rules 32 and 81 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to the extent of imposition of the additional fees is declared illegal and the same is struck down subject to the result of Civil Appeal No.11216/2017 pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
The respondents shall consider the request of the petitioners for the renewal of the Driving Licence and the Registration Certificate of the transport vehicles without insisting for the additional fees as prescribed in terms of the amended CMV Rules 32 and 81 subject to the result of Civil Appeal No.11216/2017 as aforesaid.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR