SC: State Governments have Authority to Prescribe a Fee for Reserving Registration Number for Motor Vehicles

Must Read

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and...

Follow us

On August 26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the states can charge a prescribed fee for the assignment of “distinctive marks” i.e. registration numbers to motor vehicles as a distinct service.

Facts of the Case

The registering authority in Madhya Pradesh rejected the allotment of registration number ‘MP-KL-4646’ by a vehicle owner. This was on the ground that he had not paid the prescribed fee for allotment of that number. The vehicle owner approached the High Court challenging the state’s authority to prescribe a special fee under Rule 55A of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (State Rules). He contended that the said rule was ultra vires the state’s power under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The High Court accepted his contentions. It quashed the Rule framed by the Madhya Pradesh State Government.

The State Government filed an appeal challenging the said Judgment.

The Issue in the Instant Matter

Whether Rule 55A was ultra vires the State’s power under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Central Rules to prescribe a fee for allotment of a registration number.

Court’s Observation

The Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat observed:

  1. The State can, to indicate its choice or manner of assigning, prescribe a particular set of procedures for the assignment of numbers.
  2. An overall reading of the M.P. Rules and the Act establishes that besides the express authorization to levy fees or collect amounts, both the Central Government and the State Government can (in fact are duty-bound) to extend certain services in the performance of such duties. Both these bodies, i.e. the Central and State Governments would be acting within their authority to charge or levy fees.
  3. In the event of any doubt, the generality of the power under Section 65(1) to frame Rules is sufficient along with Section 211, to conclude that the State Government has the authority to prescribe a fee for reserving certain numbers or distinguishing marks assigned as registration numbers. The setting apart of or reservation of some numbers is per se not arbitrary or unreasonable.
  4. Rule 55A was within the ambit of the powers delegated to the State, and directly related to the performance of its functions under Section 41(6), for which it could legitimately claim a fee.

Court’s Decision

The SC held that the assignment of “distinctive marks” i.e. registration numbers to motor vehicles are a distinct service for which states or their authorities can charge a prescribed fee. Rule 55A of the MP Rules is not more than the powers conferred upon the State by the Motor Vehicles Act or the Central Rules.

The appeal filed by the state of MP was thereby allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -