Summary
Madhya Pradesh could prescribe a separate fee for reserving and assigning a chosen vehicle registration number. Assignment under Section 41(6) was a distinct State service, and Sections 65 and 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorised the rule and fee despite the Central Government’s power over the ordinary registration fee. The dispute concerned the scope of delegated powers, rather than constitutional repugnancy. Rule 55A was upheld and the High Court’s contrary judgment set aside.
Issues
- Whether the State could reserve selected registration numbers and charge an additional prescribed fee.
- Whether Rule 55A exceeded powers delegated by the Motor Vehicles Act or conflicted with the Central Rules.
Provisions considered
- Sections 41(2), 41(6), 64, 65 and 211, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Distinguished the ordinary registration application fee from the State’s service of reserving and assigning specific numbers; general rule-making and fee powers sustained the State rule. (¶¶ 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 39, 40)
- Rule 55A, Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994Upheld the prescribed reservation procedure and separate fees for chosen registration marks. (¶¶ 30, 31, 39, 40)
Held
- Section 41(6) envisaged Central allocation of groups of letters and figures followed by State assignment of distinguishing marks. Assigning and reserving a particular requested number was a distinct service, rather than an inseparable act already exhausted by the Central registration application fee. (¶¶ 25, 26, 29, 30, 39, 40)
- Section 211 authorised fees for services within the rule-making powers conferred by the Act even without an express fee provision for each service. The general power under Section 65(1), read with Section 211, supported charging for chosen numbers; illustrative enumerations did not restrict that general power. (¶¶ 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
- Rule 55A prescribed differentiated fees and a first-come-first-served process, subject to vehicle production and compliance with registration requirements. Its limited reservation of numbers had not been shown arbitrary or unreasonable. (¶¶ 30, 31, 33)
- The State acted as a delegate under Parliamentary legislation. The issue was whether its rule exceeded the Act or Central Rules, rather than legislative repugnancy; Rule 55A fell within the delegated powers. (¶¶ 39, 40, 42)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court’s judgment quashing Rule 55A was set aside; no order as to costs.