Dilip Kumar Panda Vs Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.23387 of 2022 and Batch

W.P.(C) No.23387 of 2022

Siba Prasad Dubey, aged about 44 years, S/o. Surendra Dubey, AtGurukhetra, Puruna Nadikula Sahi, Sikharpur, P.O. Nayabazar, P.S.Chauliaganj, Dist.- Cuttack, Vehicle No. OR-02-AA-4717(TRUCK).

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Union of India, represented through Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi.

¶8

The Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack.

¶9

Asst. Regional Transport Officer, Khordha, At/Po. Khordha, Dist. Khordha.

¶10

…Opposite Parties

¶11

W.P.(C) No.16496 of 2022

¶12

Tirubala Parida, aged about 41 years, W/o. Dasarathi Parida, At.Kesinga, P.O/P.S.- Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi.

¶13

…Petitioner

¶14

-Versus-

¶15

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶16

W.P.(C) No.16497 of 2022

¶17

Mallick Inayat, aged about 51 years, S/o. Malik Masum, At.-

¶18

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 1 of 30

¶19

Majhikhand, P.O. Niali, Dist.- Cuttack.

¶20

…Petitioner

¶21

-Versus-

¶22

Union of India and Others

¶23

…Opp. Parties

¶24

W.P.(C) No.16882 of 2022

¶25

Kuldeep Kumar Agarwal, aged about 51 years, S/o. Sitaram Agarwal Behind Minocha Petrol Pump, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi

¶26

…Petitioner

¶27

-Versus-

¶28

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶29

W.P.(C) No.16883 of 2022

¶30

Muralilal Agarwal, aged about 45 years, S/o. Babulal Agarwal, Mahavir Pada, Jayapatna, Dist.- Kalahandi

¶31

…Petitioner

¶32

-Versus-

¶33

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶34

W.P.(C) No.16884 of 2022

¶35

Kuldeep Kumar Agarwal, aged about 51 years, S/o. Sitaram Agarwal Behind Minocha Petrol Pump, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi

¶36

…Petitioner

¶37

-Versus-

¶38

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶39

W.P.(C) No.16885 of 2022

¶40

Tamash Saha, aged about 45 years, S/o. Padmanava Saha, At.-

¶41

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 2 of 30

¶42

Laitara, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi

¶43

…Petitioner

¶44

-Versus-

¶45

Union of India and Others

¶46

…Opp. Parties

¶47

W.P.(C) No.16886 of 2022

¶48

Rabi Narayan Pattnayak, aged about 45 years, S/o. Durga Madhab Pattnayak, At.- Hatapada, P.O. Titilagarh, Dist.- Bolangir

¶49

…Petitioner

¶50

-Versus-

¶51

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶52

W.P.(C) No.16887 of 2022

¶53

Ananda Kumar Agarwal, aged about 45 years, S/o. Budharam Agarwal, At.- Kesinga, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi

¶54

…Petitioner

¶55

-Versus-

¶56

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶57

W.P.(C) No.16888 of 2022

¶58

Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, aged about 51 years, S/o. Sajjan Kumar Agarwal, At- Kesinga, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi

¶59

…Petitioner

¶60

-Versus-

¶61

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶62

W.P.(C) No.16890 of 2022

¶63

Sukhalal Agarwal, aged about 51 years, S/o. Late Mulchand Agarwal,

¶64

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 3 of 30

¶65

At./P.O. Dhamagarh, Dist- Kalahandi

¶66

…Petitioner

¶67

-Versus-

¶68

Union of India and Others

¶69

…Opp. Parties

¶70

W.P.(C) No.16891 of 2022

¶71

Jitendra Kumar Thakur, aged about 55 years, S/o. Late Sidheswar Thakur, At.-Mandar, Bagchapada, Bhawanipatna, Dist.- Kalahandi

¶72

…Petitioner

¶73

-Versus-

¶74

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶75

W.P.(C) No.19893 of 2022

¶76

Rakesh Kumar Bisi, aged about 45 years, S/o. Natabar Bisi, At- RK Tour & Travels, P.O./P.S. Bhawanipatna, Dist.- Kalahandi

¶77

…Petitioner

¶78

-Versus-

¶79

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶80

W.P.(C) No.16894 of 2022

¶81

Rabi Narayan Pattnayak, aged about 45 years, S/o. Durga Madhab Pattnayak, At. Hatapada, P.O. Titilagarh, Dist.- Bolangir

¶82

…Petitioner

¶83

-Versus-

¶84

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶85

W.P.(C) No.16895 of 2022

¶86

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, aged about 55 years, S/o. Late Kalaram

¶87

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 4 of 30

¶88

Agarwal, At/P.O. Kesinga, Dist- Kalahandi

¶89

…Petitioner

¶90

-VersusUnion of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶91

W.P.(C) No.16897 of 2022

¶92

Naresh Rana, aged about 45 years, S/o. Ganapati Rana, AtSindiekela, Dist.- Kalahandi

¶93

…Petitioner

¶94

-Versus-

¶95

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶96

W.P.(C) No.16898 of 2022

¶97

Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, aged about 51 years, S/o. Sajjan Kumar Agarwal, At. Kesinga, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist. Kalahandi.

¶98

…Petitioner

¶99

-Versus-

¶100

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶101

W.P.(C) No.19947 of 2022

¶102

Haladhar Rout, aged about 45 years, S/o. B.M Rout, At./P.O.Lahuni, Dist.- Dhenkanal

¶103

…Petitioner

¶104

-Versus-

¶105

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶106

W.P.(C) No.19950 of 2022

¶107

M/s. Akshya Infra Pvt. Ltd. through its Proprietor Mr. S. Agarwal, S/o. R. Agarwal, At.- Kesinga, P.O./P.S.- Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi

¶108

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 5 of 30

¶109

…Petitioner

¶110

-Versus-

¶111

Union of India and Others

¶112

…Opp. Parties

¶113

W.P.(C) No.19952 of 2022

¶114

Pruthiraj Ray, aged about 45 years, S/o. Radheshyam Ray, At.Gareipas, Dist.- Puri

¶115

…Petitioner -Versus-

¶116

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶117

W.P.(C) No.19954 of 2022

¶118

Dibakar Mohapatra, aged about 45 years, S/o. Sudarsan Sahoo, At./P.O. Gopinathpur, Rajsunakhal, Dist.- Nayagarh

¶119

…Petitioner

¶120

-Versus-

¶121

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶122

W.P.(C) No.19955 of 20225

¶123

Manoj Kumar Gupta, aged about 51 years, S/o. Late Gulab Chandra Gupta, At-Mahavir Pada, Bhawanipatna, Dist.- Kalahandi

¶124

…Petitioner

¶125

-Versus-

¶126

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶127

W.P.(C) No.19956 of 2022

¶128

Pradeep Kumar Jain, aged about 41 years, S/o. S. Jain, At./P.O.Sinapali, Dist.- Nuapada

¶129

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 6 of 30

¶130

…Petitioner

¶131

-Versus-

¶132

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶133

W.P.(C) No.19972 of 2022

¶134

Malaya Kumar Mund, aged about 55 years, W/o. Surendranath Mund, At-Bhawanipatna, Dist.- Kalahandi

¶135

…Petitioner

¶136

-Versus-

¶137

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶138

W.P.(C) No.19975 of 2022

¶139

Prakash Chandra Khilar, aged about 45 years, S/o. Debaraj Khilar, At-Odasahi, Dist.- Nayagarh

¶140

…Petitioner

¶141

-Versus-

¶142

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶143

W.P.(C) No.19979 of 2022

¶144

Tirubala Parida, aged about 41 years, W/o. Dasarathi Parida, AtKesinga, P.O./P.S. Kesinga, Dist.- Kalahandi

¶145

…Petitioner

¶146

-Versus-

¶147

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶148

W.P.(C) No.27085 of 2022

¶149

Sabita Prusty, aged about 40 years, W/o. Makaranda Prusty, At/P.O. Ishanendu Berhampur, Dist.- Balasore

¶150

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 7 of 30

¶151

…Petitioner

¶152

-Versus-

¶153

Union of India and Others

¶154

…Opp. Parties

¶155

W.P.(C) No.27087 of 2022

¶156

Batakrushna Pradhan, aged about 45 years, S/o. Madha Pradhan, At/P.O. Baliamunda, Dist.- Bhadrak

¶157

…Petitioner

¶158

-Versus-

¶159

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶160

W.P.(C) No.27089 of 2022

¶161

Batakrushna Pradhan, aged about 45 years, S/o. Madha Pradhan, At/P.O. Baliamunda, Dist- Bhadrak

¶162

…Petitioner

¶163

-Versus-

¶164

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶165

W.P.(C) No.27092 of 2022

¶166

Chandramohan Giri, aged about 45 years, S/o. Late Gajendra Giri, At/P.O. Ekada Jaleswar, Dist. Balasore

¶167

…Petitioner

¶168

-Versus-

¶169

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶170

W.P.(C) No.34108 of 2022

¶171

Susil Marjil Tete, aged about 45 years, S/o. Nuas Tete, At.-

¶172

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 8 of 30

¶173

Sahajabahal Bargaon, Dist.- Sundargarh

¶174

…Petitioner

¶175

-Versus-

¶176

Union of India and Others

¶177

…Opp. Parties

¶178

W.P.(C) No.23893 of 2023

¶179

Aditya Narayan Mohanty, aged about 45 years, S/o. Laxman Kumar Mohanty, At./P.O. Bhadrak, Dist- Bhadrak

¶180

…Petitioner

¶181

-Versus-

¶182

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶183

W.P.(C) No.25962 of 2023

¶184

Soudamini Swain, aged about 53 years, W/o. Benudhar Swain, At./P.O. Bhagirathpur, P.S. Kamakhyanagar, Dist. Dhenkanal, Vehicle No.OR-09-G-1954(TRUCK)

¶185

…Petitioner

¶186

-Versus-

¶187

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶188

W.P.(C) No.25965 of 2023

¶189

Narendra Kumar Das, aged about 53 years, S/o. Babaji Ch. Das, At.Sathipur, P.O.- Ranigoda, P.S.- Panikoili, Dist.- Jajpur, Vehicle No. OR-09-F-0350(TRUCK)

¶190

…Petitioner

¶191

-Versus-

¶192

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶193

W.P.(C) No.25967 of 2023 Deepak Kumar Mahunta, aged about 48 years, S/o. Udaya Nath

¶194

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 9 of 30

¶195

Mahunta, At- Baruan, P.O. Bamuan, Tumusinga, Dist.- Dhenkanal, Vehicle No.- OR-09-E-2069(TRUCK)

¶196

…Petitioner

¶197

-Versus-

¶198

Union of India and Others

¶199

…Opp. Parties

¶200

W.P.(C) No.26148 of 2023

¶201

Kishan Kumar Karia, aged about 42 years, S/o. Kiran Kumar Karia, Belapahar, Dist.- Jharsuguda

¶202

…Petitioner -Versus-

¶203

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶204

W.P.(C) No.26149 of 2023

¶205

Santosh Kumar Majhi, aged about 42 years, S/o. Radhamohan Majhi, Belapahar, Dist.- Jharsuguda

¶206

…Petitioner -Versus-

¶207

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶208

W.P.(C) No.26152 of 2023

¶209

Santosh Kumar Majhi, aged about 42 years, S/o. Radhamohan Majhi, Belapahar, Dist.- Jharsuguda

¶210

…Petitioner

¶211

-Versus-

¶212

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶213

W.P.(C) No.26155 of 2023

¶214

Kanaklata Panda, aged about 45 years, W/o. Rabi Naryan Panda,

¶215

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 10 of 30

¶216

…Petitioner

¶217

At/P.O.- Baisinga, Dist.- Mayurbhanj

¶218

-Versus-

¶219

Union of India and Others

¶220

…Opp. Parties

¶221

W.P.(C) No.26156 of 2023

¶222

Ranjan Kumar Raj, aged about 45 years, S/o. Jagannath Raj, At/P.O.Singla, Mundal Baisinga, Dist.- Mayurbhanj

¶223

…Petitioner

¶224

-Versus-

¶225

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶226

W.P.(C) No.26159 of 2023

¶227

Somanath Badhei, aged about 42 years, S/o. Dolagobinda Badhei, Laxman Pur, Dist.- Jharsuguda

¶228

…Petitioner -Versus-

¶229

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶230

W.P.(C) No.26954 of 2023

¶231

Abdul Ohid Khan, aged about 40 years, S/o. Rasul Khan, At.Madhibrahmapur, P.O. Nuapattna, P.S.- Nimapada, Dist.- Puri, Vehicle No.OR-19-D-5786(TRUCK)

¶232

…Petitioner

¶233

-Versus-

¶234

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶235

W.P.(C) No.27690 of 2023

¶236

Surendra Kumar Badra, aged about 55 years, s/o. Naik Badra, At.-

¶237

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 11 of 30

¶238

Panganal, P.O. Baliparbata, Dist.- Keonjhar, Vehicle No.OR-04-F3840(Hero Honda M/C)

¶239

…Petitioner

¶240

-Versus-

¶241

Union of India and Others

¶242

…Opp. Parties

¶243

W.P.(C) No.27692 of 2023

¶244

Chandrasekhar Ojha, aged about 23 years, S/o. Kishore Kumar Ojha, At.- Nanpur, P.O./P.S.- Balichandrapur, Dist.- Jajpur, Vehicle No.OR-05-L-7263 (Hero Honda M/C)

¶245

…Petitioner

¶246

-Versus-

¶247

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶248

W.P.(C) No.32905 of 2023

¶249

M/s. Bajarangi Food Products Pvt. Ltd., through Director Trilok Sundar Bajpayee, aged about 53 years, S/o. Chira Sundar Mishra, At.Darapada, P.O.- Kalyanpur, P.S.- Sarankul, Dist.- Nayagarh, Vehicle No.OR-02-S-5789(VAN)

¶250

…Petitioner

¶251

-Versus-

¶252

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶253

W.P.(C) No.32907 of 2023

¶254

Bhimasen Pradhan, aged about 51 years, S/o. Binod Pradhan, At.Kadhamalla, P.O. Thanapalli, P.S. Baidyeswar, Dist. Nayagarh, Vehicle No.OR-04-E-8228(TIPPER)

¶255

…Petitioner

¶256

-Versus-

¶257

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶258

W.P.(C) No.32908 of 2023

¶259

Aruna Kumar Pradhan, aged about 67 years, S/o. Debaraj Pradhan, At.- Damodarpur, Patana, P.O.- Manibandha, P.S.- Begunia, Dist.Khordha, Vehicle No. OR-25-A-0271(TRUCK)

¶260

-Versus-

¶261

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶262

W.P.(C) No.32910 of 2023

¶263

Trilok Sundar Bajpayee, aged about 53 years, S/o. Chira Sundar Mishra, At.- Amalapada, Nayagarh College Road, P.O./P.S./Dist.Nayagarh, Vehicle No.-OR-23-8381(TRUCK)

¶264

…Petitioner

¶265

-Versus-

¶266

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶267

W.P.(C) No.34488 of 2023

¶268

Surendra Patra, aged about 41 years, S/o. Balabhadra Patra, At/P.O.Kunjabihari Prasad, Dist.- Nayagarh

¶269

…Petitioner

¶270

-Versus-

¶271

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶272

W.P.(C) No.36935 of 2023

¶273

Soham Das, aged about 25 years, S/o. Barada Prasana Das, At.Samanta Sahi, P.O. Buxibazar, P.S. Lalbag, Dist.- Cuttack, Vehicle

¶274

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 13 of 30

¶275

No.OR-02-M-6158 (TRUCK)

¶276

…Petitioner

¶277

-Versus-

¶278

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶279

W.P.(C) No.37871 of 2023

¶280

Mukesh Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 41 years, S/o. Late Ramsewak Sahu, At-Rourkela, Rani Bagicha, Dist. Sundargarh

¶281

…Petitioner

¶282

-Versus-

¶283

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶284

W.P.(C) No.37872 of 2023

¶285

Pramod Kumar Choudhury, aged about 41 years, S/o. Damodar Choudhury, At.- Aska Road, Dist.- Ganjam

¶286

…Petitioner

¶287

-Versus-

¶288

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶289

W.P.(C) No.39233 of 2023

¶290

Narayan Mallick, aged about 63 years, S/o. Late Bhanjakishore Mallick, At.- Jobra Nuasahi, Malgodown, Dist.- Cuttack

¶291

…Petitioner

¶292

-Versus-

¶293

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶294

W.P.(C) No.6658 of 2024

¶295

Laxmidhar Sahoo, aged about 60 years, S/o. Baishnab Charan Sahoo, At.- Jadumani Nagar, P.O./P.S./Dist.- Nayagarh, Vehicle No.-OR-15E-2701(TRUCK)

¶296

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 14 of 30

¶297

…Petitioner -VersusUnion of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶298

W.P.(C) No.6679 of 2024

¶299

Anadi Das, aged about 37 years, S/o. Subal Das, At/P.O.- Ratapata, P.S.- Badamba, Dist.- Cuttack, Vehicle No.OR-02-W-5532 (PICKUP)

¶300

…Petitioner

¶301

-Versus-

¶302

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶303

W.P.(C) No.6680 of 2024

¶304

Dilip Kumar Panda, aged about 23 years, S/o. Pravat Kumar Panda, At.- Sunakhala, Nuasahi, P.O.- Bijipur, P.S.- Fategarh, Dist.Nayagarh, Vehicle No.-OR-02-AT-2596(TATA ACE)

¶305

…Petitioner -VersusUnion of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶306

W.P.(C) No.14999 of 2024

¶307

Sumanta Mallick, aged about 41 years, S/o. Hrusi Mallick, At.- Baro, Olatpur, Dist.- Cuttack

¶308

…Petitioner

¶309

-Versus-

¶310

Union of India and Others …Opp. Parties

¶311

Advocates appeared in these cases: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Subash Ch. Pani, Advocate Mr. B.M. Sarangi, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 15 of 30

¶312

Mr. D.R. Bhokta, CGC Mr. P.P. Behera, CGC Mr. Manoj Ku. Pati, CGC Mr. J. Naik, CGC Mr. B.K. Pardhi, CGC Ms. Babita Sahu, CGC Ms. J. Sahoo, CGC Mr. B. Maharana, CGC Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, CGC Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC

¶313

Mr. Pravakar Behera, Standing Counsel (Transport)

¶314

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶315

JUDGMENT 26.11.2024

¶316

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ.

¶317

Since all these writ applications involve identical question of law and facts, with the consent of the parties, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order.

¶318

The petitioners have put to challenge, in the present batch of writ applications, the validity of Central Motor Vehicles (Twenty Third Amendment) Rules, 2021 (the Amendment Rules, 2021 for short) issued by a notification dated 04.10.2021 by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India to the extent Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short, ‘CMV Rules) has

¶319

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 16 of 30

¶320

been amended by incorporating provision by way of substitution, for levying additional fee in case of delay in applying for renewal of certificate of registration (Sl. No.4 Note 2) and delay after expiry of certificate of fitness of a vehicle (Note under Sl. No.11A) of the Table. Rule 3 of the Amendment Rules, 2021 is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶321

“3. In the said rules, in rule 81, -

¶322

(i) after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely: -

¶323

“Provided further that, in case the vehicle is registered on submission of „‟Certificate of Deposit‟, the fee for issue of certificate of registration shall not be levied.”;

¶324

(ii) in the TABLE,-

¶325

(a) For serial number (4) and the entries relating thereto, the following shall be substituted, namely:-

¶326

Sr. No.	Purpose	Amount	Rule	Section
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
“4.	Issue of certificates of registration and assignment of new registration mark or renewal of certificate of registration.-		47(1) 52(1) 54(1) 76(1) 78(1)
	(a) Invalid carriage	Fifty rupees
	(b) Motor cycle: (1) New registration (2) Renewal of registration	(1)Three hundred rupees (2)One thousand rupees
	(c) Three wheeler/ Quadricycle: (1) New registration (2) Renewal of registration	(1) Six hundred rupees (2) Two thousand five hundred rupees
	(d) Light motor vehicle: (1) New registration (2) Renewal of registration	(1) Six hundred rupees (2) Five thousand

¶327

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 17 of 30

¶328

		rupees
	(e) Medium Goods/ Passenger vehicle.	One thousand rupees
	(f) Heavy Goods/ Passenger vehicle. -	One thousand five hundred rupees
	(g) Imported motor vehicle (Two/Three wheeled): (1) New registration (2) Renewal of registration	(1) Two thousand five hundred rupees (2) Ten thousand rupees
	(h) Imported motor vehicle (Four or more wheeled): (1) New registration (2)Renewal of registration	(1) Five thousand rupees (2) Forty thousand
		rupees
	(i) Any other vehicle not mentioned above (1) New registration (2) Renewal of registration	(1) Three thousand rupees (2) Six thousand rupees
	Note 1: Additional fee of two hundred rupees shall be levied if the certificate of registration is a smart card type issued or renewed in Form 23A. *Note 2: In case of delay in* *applying for renewal of* *certificate of registration,* *an additional fee of three* *hundred rupees for delay of* *every month or part thereof* *in respect of motor cycles* *and five hundred rupees* *for delay of every month or* *part thereof in respect of* *other* *classes* of *non-* *transport vehicles shall be* *levied.’’;*
(b) aft inserte	er serial number (10) and ent d, namely: -	ries relating thereto, the following shall be
“10A.	Conducting test of a vehicle for grant and	62(2)

¶329

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 18 of 30

¶330

renewal of certificate of fitness for motor vehicles older than 15 years:
(a) Motorcycle	(i) Manual: Four hundred rupees (ii) Automated: Five hundred rupees
(b) Three wheeled or light motor vehicle or quadricycle	(i) Manual: Eight hundred rupees (ii) Automated: One thousand rupees
(c) Medium goods / passenger motor vehicle	(i) Manual: Eight hundred rupees (ii)Automated: One thousand three hundred rupees
(d) Heavy goods or passenger motor vehicle (c) after serial number (11) and the be inserted, namely: -	(i) Manual: One thousand rupees (ii) Automated: One thousand five hundred rupees.”; entries relating thereto,	the foll
“11A. Grant or renewal of certificate of fitness for motor vehicles (transport) older than 15 years:		62(2)
(a) Motorcycle	One thousand rupees
(b) Three wheeled or quadricycle	Three thousand five hundred rupees
(c) light motor vehicle	Seven thousand five hundred rupees
(d) Medium goods or passenger motor vehicle	Ten Thousand rupees
(e) Heavy goods or passenger motor vehicle	Twelve thousand five hundred rupees

¶331

(c) after serial number (11) and the entries relating thereto, the following shall be inserted, namely: -

¶332

Note: Additional fee of fifty rupees for each day of delay after expiry of certificate of fitness shall be levied.”

¶333

(Highlighted for emphasis)

¶334

2.1. The amendment Rules, 2021 have come into force with effect from 01.04.2022, by operation of sub-rule 2 of Rule 1 thereof.

¶335

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 19 of 30

¶336

Rule 81 of the CMV Rules prescribes the fees leviable under the provisions of Chapter-III (Registration of Motor Vehicles), as specified in the table contained therein.

¶337

It is evident that the following amendment has been made to levy additional fee in case of delay in applying for renewal of certificate of registration:-

¶338

“(i) Sl. No.4-Note 2: In case of delay in applying for renewal of certificate of registration, an additional fee of three husband rupees for delay of every month or part thereof in respect of motor cycles and five hundred rupees for delay of every month or part thereof in respect of other classes on non-transport vehicles shall be levied.”

¶339

In relation to grant or renewal of certificate of fitness of motor vehicles (transport) older than 15 years, a provision has been made for additional fee of fifty rupees for each day of delay after expiry of certificate of fitness. The amended Serial No.11A reads thus:-

¶340

“(ii) Sl No. 11A- Grant or renewal of certificate of fitness for motor vehicles (transport) older than 15 years- NoteAdditional fee of fifty rupees for each day of delay after expiry of certificate of fitness shall be levied.”

¶341

The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.27960 of 2023 and 27962 of 2023 are aggrieved by imposition of additional fee under Sl. No.4 Note-2 in case of delay in renewal of registration certificate. The imposition of additional fee in the case of renewal of fitness certificate under Sl. No.11A-Note is under challenge in the rest of the cases.

¶342

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 20 of 30

¶343

We have heard Mr. Subash Chandra Pani and Mr. B.M. Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) for the Union of India and Mr. P. Behera, learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department and Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Mr. P.P. Behera, Mr. Manoj Kumar Pati, Mr. J. Naik, Mr. B.K. Pardhi, Ms. B. Sahoo, Ms. J. Sahoo, Mr. B. Maharana, Mr. B.S. Rayguru and Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respective opposite parties.

¶344

It is the common case of the petitioners that prior to issuance of the impugned notification, a notification was issued by the Government of India in 2016 revising the fee structure by imposing additional fee, which notification was challenged before the Madras High Court. A Division Bench of Madras High Court, by a judgment rendered on 03.04.2017 in W.P. No.1598 of 2017 (Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways), reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Mad. 1550 and batch of cases had struck down the said 2016 notification to the extent, it had sought to impose additional fee. A challenge to the judgment of Madras High Court is pending adjudication by the Supreme Court. It is further case of the petitioners that in the light of the Madras High Court decision in the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra) , this High Court had quashed the said notification in the case of Dinabandhu Sahoo v. Union of India (AIR 2019 Orissa 110) . Other High Courts had also quashed the notification as was done by the Madras High Court in the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra).

¶345

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 21 of 30

¶346

Referring to various provisions of the MV Act and the CMV Rules, he has submitted that in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 28, 65, 96, 111 and 138 of the MV Act, the State of Odisha has already made Odisha Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993 (in short, ‘OMV Rules’), Chapter III of which deals with registration of motor vehicles. He has submitted that Rule 22 (6) of the OMV Rules prescribes that an application for renewal of the certificate of fitness shall be made in Form-II not less than thirty days before the date of expiry of the certificate and the owner or the person in control of the vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be produced for inspection on such date and at such time and place as appointed under Sub-rule (4) thereof. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 22 of the OMV Rules further lays down that if the owner or the person in control of the vehicle fails to make an application under sub-rule (6) of the said Rules, he shall be liable to pay a penalty of Rs.500/- in addition to the fees prescribed for renewal of fitness certificate and inspection of motor vehicle. The proviso to sub-rule (7) empowers the Registering Authority to condone the delay in making the application, if it is satisfied that the owner or the person in control of the vehicle was prevented to make such application within the stipulated period on medical grounds.

¶347

Rule 34(1) of the OMV Rules prescribes “charges for delayed registration or renewal. The said Rule reads as under:

¶348

“ 34. Charges for delayed registration or renewal .

¶349

(1) If the owner of a vehicle fails to make an application for registration under Sub-section (1) or for renewal of certificate of registration under Sub-section (8) of section 41, within the period prescribed under Rules 47 and 52

¶350

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 22 of 30

¶351

respectively of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the registering authority may having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the owner to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under section 177, an amount of rupees twenty-five for the delay extending up to thirty days, rupees fifty for the delay for any period exceeding thirty days up to ninety days and rupees one hundred for the delay for any period exceeding ninety days.”

¶352

He has, accordingly, submitted that since Rules have already been framed under OMV Rules for processing delayed application for renewal of fitness certificate and renewal of registration certificate by way of delegation of power under Section 65 of the MV Act to the State Government, in absence of any amendment in the MV Act, the Union of India does not have the competence to impose additional fee and, therefore, the said notification is liable to be struck down.

¶353

Referring to the decision in the case of Madras High Court in Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra) , he has submitted that it has been clearly held, dealing with the earlier 2016 notification, that the provisions of the MV Act do not provide for levy of fines in the above circumstances. Contrary to the law laid down by the Madras High Court in Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra) , the Union of India has issued the impugned notification without any amendment in the MV Act.

¶354

It may, however, be noted at this juncture that in a recent decision dated April 2, 2024 in Public Interest Litigation No.130 of 2022 (‘K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha v. Union of India) ,

¶355

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 23 of 30

¶356

reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom. 970 , a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has interpreted Section 211 of the MV Act and has held that the said provision vests power with the Central Government to make Rules providing for levy of additional fee for processing delayed applications for certain purposes, such as, for seeking renewal of driving license, renewal of registration certificate of a vehicle, change of residence and transfer of ownership of vehicle. The Bombay High Court has, accordingly, held that levy of additional fees in this case, is in no manner a penalty, either directly or in disguise. The Bombay High Court, for reaching the said conclusion, has relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in the case Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam Vs. Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation, reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 960 and Sona Chandi Oal Committee and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 345 and has concluded that levy of additional fee as prescribed under the provisions of 1980 Rules cannot be said to be any kind of deterrence rather, by making the provision for consideration of delayed application for renewal of driving license, registration of certificate of vehicle etc., the CMV Rules provide a facility to the vehicle owners’ or drivers to seek renewal of registration of motor vehicle or driving license beyond the time limit prescribed for such purpose. The Bombay High Court has held in the case of K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha (supra) that charge of additional fee is not a penalty.

¶357

Mr. Pani, learned counsel has submitted that said decision of Bombay High Court in the case of K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha (supra) lays down an incorrect law by misinterpreting Section

¶358

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 24 of 30

¶359

211 of the MV Act. He has argued that when there is no ambiguity or absurdity in the language of the statute, there is no question of interpretation. Section 211 of the MV Act has no application to the present case as the notification in question has been issued under Section 64 of the MV Act and, therefore, the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court does not lay down the correct law. He has submitted that the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra) has been followed by this Court in the case of Dinabandhu Sahu (supra) and, therefore, applying the legal reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra) this Court should declare the impugned provisions under the Amendment Rules as illegal and beyond jurisdiction.

¶360

Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has submitted that the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha (supra) is the legally correct view. This Court in the present batch of writ applications may not take a different view than what has been taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha (supra) while interpreting the same set of Central Legislation which apply across the country. He has, accordingly, submitted that these applications should be disposed of in terms of the law laid down by the Bombay High Court.

¶361

The only question which has arisen in the present batch of writ applications, in the light of the aforementioned circumstances is,

¶362

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 25 of 30

¶363

whether we should follow the view taken by the Madras High Court in Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra) based on which a Division Bench of this Court had disposed of batch of writ applications in Dinabandhu Sahu (supra ) or, should decline to entertain the challenge to Amendment Rules considering the fact that a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha (supra) has upheld the validity of the said Amendment Rules of 2021.

¶364

The Madras High Court in the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra), had the occasion to consider the question of the competence of fixing new fees structure by amending Rules 32 and 81 of the CMV Rules to the extent the same related to levy of additional fees, as the core issue. It appears from this Court’s decision in the case of Dinabandhu Sahu (supra) that the petitioners in that case relied on the Madras High Court’s decision in the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra) on the simple reasoning that unless the provisions in question were struck down, there would be different applications of the same provision in the State of Tamil Nadu and the State of Odisha, which is impermissible in view of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. Accepting the said contention, this Court in Dinabandhu Sahu (supra) held in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under:

¶365

“11. In view of the fact stated above, the impugned Notification No.1183 (E) dated 29/12/2016, more particularly, entry at Sl.No.11, Column No.3 of the table to Rule 81, which has been issued by the Central Government, is travelling beyond the scope of Act and

¶366

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 26 of 30

¶367

the same is without authority of law. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners are required to be accepted and the same is accepted in view of the fact that the notification has already been quashed and set aside by the Madras High Court. In view of operation of law the same is applicable to the State of Odisha also.

¶368

Further, in view the observations made by the Madras High Court in its order/judgment delivered in Textile Technical Tradesmen Association (supra) and Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra), the notification is required to be quashed and set aside, therefore, the same is quashed and set aside.

¶369

12. The parties are directed to abide by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the Central Government has already challenged the impugned judgment of Madras High Court, they are not required to challenge this order. However, if the petitioners want to intervene in the application pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is open to the petitioners to intervene and prefer appropriate application to plead the case before the Supreme Court.”

¶370

However, after having discussed the provisions under Sections 110 and 211 of the MV Act, the Bombay High Court in the case of K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha (supra) held in paragraphs 15 and 17 as under:

¶371

“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 a quid pro quo for services offered by officers or

¶372

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 27 of 30

¶373

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 judgement 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 denaturalisation of alcohol. The Bench, quashing the levy, states as follows:

¶374

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.

¶375

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the levy of additional fee under various heads as per the impugned notification is without authority and such levy of additional fee is, therefore, liable to be struck down.”

¶376

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 28 of 30

¶377

The Bombay High Court in the case of K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha (supra) has considered the Madras High Court’s decision rendered in Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra) and has held in paragraph 24 as under:

¶378

“24. With all respect at our command to the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra), we may observe that the said judgment does not attempt to interpret Section 211 of the parent Act, specially, the interpretation which can be ascribed to Section 211 on account of occurrence of the phrases (a) "notwithstanding the absence of any express provision to that effect" and (b) "and for any other purpose or matter involving the rendering of any services".

¶379

After noticing the law laid down by the Madras High Court in the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra), the Bombay High Court in a recent decision in the case of K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha (supra) has conclusively held that Section 211 of the MV Act vests power with the Central Government to make Rules providing for levy of additional fee for processing delayed applications for certain purposes such as seeking renewal of driving licence, renewal of registration certificate of a vehicle, change of residence and transfer of ownership of a vehicle. Taking a different view than what was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra), the Bombay High Court has held that levy of additional fee is in no manner a penalty, either directly or in disguise.

¶380

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 29 of 30

¶381

The principle of comity requires that the Courts of one State or jurisdiction will give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another State or jurisdiction, not as a matter of obligation but out of deference and mutual respect. In Neon Laboratories Vs. Medical Technologies Limited, reported in (2016) 2 SCC 672 , the Supreme has reiterated that every High Court must give due deference to the enunciation of law made by another High Court, even though it is free to charter a divergent direction. Judicial comity is recognized as an integral part of judicial discipline and judicial discipline is the corner stone of the judicial integrity.

¶382

In the present case, since the Bombay High Court has already taken view on the competence of the Central Government to impose additional fees under Rules 32 and 81 of the CMV Rules, we decline to entertain the challenge to the impugned notification on the ground of incompetence of the Central Government to impose additional tax, in the aforesaid background.

¶383

All these writ applications are, accordingly, dismissed.

¶384

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice Savitri Ratho, J. I agree.

¶385

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶386

SK Jena/Secy.

¶387

Signature Not Verified

¶388

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 26-Nov-2024 17:39:56

¶389

WPC No.23387 of 2022 and batch Page 30 of 30

Dilip Kumar Panda v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Panda v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Odisha Vs Minarani Mohanty

Punjab National Bank Vs Muktesh Munda

Abeda Bibi Vs Latifa Khatun

Anadi Das Vs Union of India

Laxmidhar Sahoo Vs Union of India

M/S Quinn India Catering, Cuttack Vs Union of India