M.P.A.L.T. PERMIT OWNERS ASSN. AND ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 28-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

f 
• 
M.P.A.l.T. PERMIT OWNERS ASSN. AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
NOVEMBER 28, 2003 
(S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991-Sections 
16(6), (7) and (8), 20-A and 20-B-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 
66 and 192-A-Provisions of State Act of 1991 providing for confiscation 
A 
B 
of vehicles thereby enhancing penalty which is provided by Central Act of C 
1988 setting out certain amount of fine-Constitutional ·validity of the 
provisions of the State Act-Held: .Prescription of punishment is for the 
same offence but there are additional penalties arising under State Act thus 
there is clear conflict between two enactments-State law has not complied 
with the requirements under Article 254(2) of the Constitution obtaining D 
assent of the President to the State law-Hence the provisions of Section 
16(6) of the. 1991 Act and consequential provisions are repugnant to 
section 66 read with section 192-A of the Central Act and hence invalid-
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 254. 
Sections 16(6), (7) & (8), 20-A and 20-B of the Madhya Pradesh E 
l\fotoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 was inserted by the Madhya 
Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1999. It re-
ceived the assent of the Governor and was published in. the official 
Gazette~ The provisions of the 1991 Act provided for confiscation of 
vehicle thereby enhancing the penalty whereas there are provisions in F 
the 1988 Act which sets out only certain amount of fine. Appellant-
State Permit Owners Association filed writ petition challenging con-
stitutional validity of Sections 16(6) & (7) and (8), 20-A and 20-B of 
the 1991 Act on the ground that they are repugnant to the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988. High Court held that there was no repugnancy G 
between .State Act and the Central Act and, therefore, the provisions 
of the State Act were valid. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant contended that while a provision has been made for the 
purpose of seizure of a motor vehitle for non-payment of tax and such 
vehicle, as provided under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, H 
331 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A has to be released the moment the tax is paid and even if in respect 
of such vehicle a mere report is filed in terms of Section 16(6) of the 
Act, the vehicle is liable to be;confiscated thereby the object of the Act 
to recover the tax is not fulfilled but results only in imposing further 
penalty upon the owner of the driver of the vehicle and in turn results 
B in enhancing the penalty provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 
which clearly would result in repugnancy in the provisions thereof. 
Respondent-State contended that the provisions under the Act are 
valid and fall within the competence of the State legislature; and that 
there is absolutely no repugnancy between the Motor Vehicles Act and 
C the State Act inasmuch as they operate in two different fields-one is 
a regulatory measure while the other is the taxation measure. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
D 
HELD : 1. There is clear conflict and repugnancy between the 
Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 and the 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, Section 16(6) and the consequen-
tial provisions of Sections 16(7), (16(8), 20-A and 20-B of the Act are 
quashed and the order of the High Court is set aside. (333-H; 334-A) 
E 
2.1. The prescription of punishment is for the same offence arising 
under Section 66 read with section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 
and further punishment is prescribed under the State Motor Vehicle 
Taxation Act for forfeiture of the vehicle. Apart from what is available 
under Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, there are additional 
F penalties arising under Section 16(6) of the Act. Thus, there is clear 
conflict between the two enaCtments. (342-B-C) 
• 
2.2. The confiscation of the vehicle under Section 16(6) of the 
Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 would arise 
only in the event if an offence is committed unde'r Section 66 read with 
G section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, therefore, such 
provision could not have been enacted without the assent of the President 
as the same directly impinges upon Article 254 of the Constitution. 
Under Article 254, the law made by Parliament will prevail in respect 
of subjects covered under List III 'of the Seventh Schedule to· the 
H Constitution. An exception is carved out in clause (2)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.