STATE OF M.P. & ORS. versus RAKESH SETHI & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 734 · Decided: 26-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
734
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
v.
RAKESH SETHI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7074 of 2008)
AUGUST 26, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994:
r. 55 A – Validity of – High Court held that Rule 55-A is ultra
vires the State’s power under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Held: In view of ss. 65(1) and 211 of
Motor Vehicles Act, State Government has the authority to prescribe
a fee for reserving certain numbers or distinguishing marks to be
assigned as registration numbers – Therefore, Rule 55A is not in
excess of the powers conferred upon the State by the Act or the
Central Rules – The State was competent to make the legislation
through the provisions of the Act – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 –
ss. 65(1) and 211 – Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. The High Court, in its impugned judgement, lost
sight of the true import of Section 211 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. The existence of specific provisions empowering the State
[such as Sections 41(13), 47(7), 49(4) and 50(5)] of the Act, means
that the power of the State to claim or charge amounts, is
specifically recognized by express provisions. Further, there are
certain services and functions for which the State is empowered
to levy fees. It is precisely to cover these contingencies, i.e. where
the service is rendered or some function performed, that the State
is empowered by a residual provision (much like the Central
Government with which it shares the power concurrently) to levy
fees. Section 211 is cast in wide terms and that any rule which
the Central Government or the State Government is empowered
to make under the Act may, notwithstanding the absence of any
express provision to that effect, provide for the levy of such fees in
respect of applications, amendment of documents, issue of
certificates, licences, permits, tests, endorsements, badges, plates,
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 734
734
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
735
countersignatures, authorisation, supply of statistics or copies of
documents or orders and for any other purpose or matter involving
the rendering of any service. Clearly, therefore, the Parliament
intended that contingencies not covered by a specific power to
levy fees or amounts, which entailed some activity on the part of
the State, including rendering of any service could be legitimately
charged or subjected to the levy of fee or amounts. [Para 29]
[754-D-G]
2. The assignment of numbers by the registering authority
through an official/agency or department notified by the State
Government, cannot be seen as a mere step – albeit at the fag-
end of the registration allotment process. In fact, though it is the
culmination of the allotment process, it is nevertheless an
important step. The state is entitled to indicate its choice or
manner of assigning by prescribing a particular set of procedures
for the assignment of numbers. Thus, for instance, the assignment
of the concerned “code” - to the individual registering authorities
followed by the assignment of numerics may follow a
predetermined pattern which may be district wise, State
Government department wise (in the case of publicly owned
vehicles), different sequences for buses and heavy vehicles and
so on. If such a predetermined choice can be made by prescribing
the mode of assignment, it is both regulatory and at the same
time indicative of State policy. Per se, the Court cannot brush
aside the element of service which may be involved – especially
if the general public or a sub-section of it, wishes to choose
particular numbers for various considerations. Such “fancy”
numbers or “auspicious” numbers may well therefore have to be
set apart having regard to the peculiar socio-cultural needs of
the people of the state. It is in such an event that the availability
of such numbers and their reservation as a choice and the power
of their assignment assumes importance. In the impugned Rule
55A in the present instance, introduced in 2001 through
amendment by the State of M.P., prescribes four different fees –
` 15000/- for the registration marks 1 to 9 in any series prevalent
within the jurisdiction of the registering authority; and
` 12000/- for reservation of marks from 10 to 100 in any series
within the jurisdiction of the registering authority. For reservation
of large series of numbers indicated in Rule 55A(c), ` 10000/-
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.