Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 19 May, 2023
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/40
GAHC010005302019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/167/2019
PULEN DEY AND ANR.
S/O. GOBINDA MOHAN DEY, R/O. SIX MILE, CHACCHAL, H.NO.-5,
SUDARSHAN PATH, GUWAHATI-22, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM.
2: LALIT BHARALI
S/O. RAMESWAR BHARALI
R/O. KAMPUR
P.O. KAMPUR
DIST. NAGAON
PIN-782426
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT DEPTT., GOVT. OF ASSAM,
JAWAHAR NAGAR, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI-22.
2:THE SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM TRANSPORT DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY.-06
ASSAM.
3:THE ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
PALTANBAZAR
GHY.-08.
4:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-08.
Page No.# 2/40
5:THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
6:THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
BETKUCHI
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP (M)
PIN-781035.
7:THE ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
NAGAON
(REGISTERING AUTHORITY) PIN-782001.
8:THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
KAMRUP
(REGISTERING AUTHORITY)
KAMRUP (M)
PIN-781035
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. Y. DOLEY(SC, TRANSPORT)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Date : 19-05-2023
The two petitioners have instituted the writ petition to invoke the extra-ordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
assailment of a Notification bearing no. TMV.263/2015/84 dated 17.12.2018 issued
by the Transport Department, Government of Assam under the hand of the
Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department.
Page No.# 3/40
2. In the Notification dated 17.12.2018, it is mentioned that a proposal had been
submitted by the Assam State Transport Corporation [hereinafter referred to as 'the
ASTC' or 'the respondent Corporation', at places, for easy reference] to grant approval to
it under Section 19 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 to undertake the
activity of operating Authorised Testing Stations in each of the districts of Assam with a
copy of the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2018 passed by this Court in the writ
petition, W.P.[C] no. 1395/2018 [Nagaon Jila Bus Paribahan Santha and two others vs.
The State of Assam and another]. It further mentions that upon careful perusal and
examination of the proposal submitted by the ASTC; the Judgment and Order dated
27.09.2018 [supra]; the relevant provisions of Section 19 of the Road Transport
Corporations Act, 1950; Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and Rule 63 of the
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it has been found that the ASTC has possessed the
required qualifications and is fit to comply with all the requirements, as prescribed under
the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 63 of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 for setting up Authorised Testing Stations. Observing so, the State
Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19 of the Road Transport
Corporations Act, 1950 has accorded approval to the ASTC to operate Authorized Testing
Stations in each of the districts of Assam with the further direction to the ASTC to follow
the procedure prescribed under Rule 63 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and
Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998. By the Notification dated 17.12.2018, the
ASTC has been permitted to realize service charge @ Rs. 300/- in respect of Light Motor
Vehicles [LMV] and @ Rs. 500/- in respect of Medium and Heavy Motor Vehicles [MMVs
& HMVs] apart from the statutory fees prescribed by the Transport Department,
Government of Assam, which should be deposited to the State Exchequer.
3. Before going further, it may be stated that the Road Transport Corporations Act,
1950 [Act no. 64 of 1950] has been enacted by the Parliament to provide for
incorporation and regulation of Road Transport Corporations. As per the definition
provided by Section 2[b] thereof, 'Corporation' means a Road Transport Corporation
established under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 contained in 'Chapter II : Road
Transport Corporation' of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 has provided for
Page No.# 4/40
establishment of Road Transport Corporations in the States. Sections 3 states that the
State Government having regard to - [a] the advantages offered to the public, trade and
industry by the development of road transport; [b] the desirability of co-ordinating any
form of road transport with any other form of transport; [c] the desirability of extending
and improving the facilities for road transport in any area and of providing an efficient
and economical system of road transport service therein, may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, establish a Road Transport Corporation for the whole or any part of the
States under such name as may be specified in the notification. It is not in dispute that
the respondent ASTC is a Road Transport Corporation, established under Section 3 r/w
Section 2[b] of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. ['the RTC Act, 1950', for
short] on 31.03.1970.
4. The two petitioners have claimed that they are in the business of providing road
transport services, having requisite permits from the concerned authorities. While the
petitioner no. 1 has claimed to be a holder of a Public Carriage permit which is valid in
routes all over Assam, the petitioner no. 2 has claimed to be a holder of a Contract
Carriage permit in the route from Hojai to Howraghat sub-counter. As the petitioners'
vehicles which ply under the aegis of the respondent ASTC, also operate on the routes
where the vehicles of the respondent ASTC also ply, the petitioners have contended that
there is active business competition of the petitioners' vehicles with the vehicles of the
respondent ASTC.
5. The case pleaded by the petitioners, in brief, is that a decision was taken in a
meeting of the Transport Department, held on 13.02.2017, to allow the respondent
Corporation to engage in the activity of operating Authorized Testing Stations under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Pursuant to the said decision, the Secretary to the
Government of Assam wrote to the Managing Director, ASTC on 20.11.2017 conveying
the approval of the Government to the proposal for grant of a Letter of Authority to the
respondent ASTC for a period of 5 [five] years under Rule 63 of the Central Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1989 for operating Authorized Testing Stations for issuance of Certificates
of Fitness to Transport Vehicles under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Page No.# 5/40
subject to fulfillment of all the conditions prescribed therein. By the letter dated
20.11.2017, the Managing Director, ASTC was requested to submit a proposal on details
of fees/charges, etc. item-wise for realization of the fees, etc. under the Central Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1989 ['the CMV Rules, 1989', for short] or the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
['the MV Act, 1988', for short]. By a Notification bearing no. TMV.263/2015/59 dated
11.01.2018, the State Government in the Transport Department accorded approval to
the respondent ASTC to operate Authorised Testing Stations of commercial vehicles/any
other vehicles as specified under Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988 and Rule 63 of the CMV
Rules, 1989, subject to fulfillment of all the conditions laid down therein. The
Notification dated 11.01.2018 had further mentioned that the respondent ASTC could
take service charge @ Rs. 300/- in respect of Light Motor Vehicles [LMVs] and @ Rs.
500/- in respect of Medium & Heavy Motor Vehicles [MMVs & HMVs], apart from the
statutory fees prescribed by the Transport Department, Government of Assam, which
should be deposited to the State Exchequer.
6. Aggrieved by the letter dated 20.11.2017 [supra] and the Notification dated
11.01.2018 [supra], three associations of bus operators viz. [i] Nagaon Jila Bus
Paribahan Santha; [ii] Sunitpur Udalguri Darrang Nalbari & Kamrup District Bus Owners
Association; & [iii] Sanmilita Bus Samannayarakhi Samity; had joined together to prefer
a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1395/2018 before this Court to challenge those inter alia on
the ground that those were issued in deviation of the prescribed procedure to be
followed under Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 and also on the ground that the letter
dated 20.11.2017 [supra] and the Notification dated 11.01.2018 [supra] were issued by
an authority, who was not the prescribed authority under the CMV Rules, 1989.
7. After considering the provisions of Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950; Section 56 of
the MV Act, 1988; and Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989, the letter dated 20.11.2017
[supra] and the Notification dated 11.01.2018 [supra] were set aside by a Judgment and
Order dated 27.09.2018 rendered in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1395/2018 [Nagaon
Jila Bus Paribahan Santha and two others vs. The State of Assam and another]. In the
Judgment and Order, it had been concluded that there is an entitlement of the
Page No.# 6/40
respondent ASTC to venture into any activity including the activity of operating an
Authorized Service Station and there is statutory requirements under Section 19 of the
RTC Act, 1950 to obtain approval for the same.
7.1. For ready reference, paragraph 11, paragraph 20 & paragraph 21 of the Judgment
and Order dated 27.09.2018 are quoted hereinbelow :-
11. Section 19[i] of the Act of 1950 provides that the Transport Corporation shall
have the power to do all such activities enumerated therein, whereas, Section 19[2]
provides that the power conferred under sub-section [1] shall also include the power
as described in sub-section [2]. Section 19[2][m] provides for the power to do all
things to facilitate the proper carrying of the business of the Corporation with prior
approval of the State Government. Accordingly, the activity of operating the
authorized fitness center can be construed to be an activity undertaken by the ASTC
for proper carrying out of its business.
* * * * * * * * * *
20. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the communication dated 20.11.2017 and the
notification dated 11.01.2018 are set aside. However, as a conclusion had already
been arrived that there is an entitlement of the respondent ASTC to venture into any
activity including the activity of operating an authorized testing station, although
there is a statutory requirement under Section 19 of the Act of 1950 to obtain an
approval for the same, setting aside of the aforesaid communication and the
notification shall not be a bar on the part of the respondent ASTC to make an
appropriate application under Section 19 of the Act of 1950.
In the event, any such application is made, the State respondent authorities shall
strictly follow the procedure required under Section 19 and arrive at its conclusion as
to whether to grant or not grant such approval. Only upon such approval being
granted under Section 19, the ASTC shall be eligible to make further application
under Form 40 of the Rules 1989 for grant of Letter of Authority in Form 39, if they
Page No.# 7/40
are otherwise, found fit but strictly by following the procedure under Rule 63 of the
Rule of 1989.
21. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. It is provided that as
to what fees are to be charged by the respondent ASTC, in the event, they are
ultimately issued a Letter of Authority, the same also shall be determined strictly in
terms of Rule 81 of the Rules of 1989, as amended.
7.2. In the afore-quoted paragraphs, it has been observed that setting aside of the
letter dated 20.11.2017 [supra] and the Notification dated 11.01.2018 [supra] shall not
be a bar on the part of the respondent ASTC to make an appropriate application under
Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950 seeking approval from the State Government to operate
Authorized Testing Stations. In the event any such application is made, the State
respondent authorities shall strictly follow the procedure required under Section 19 of
the RTC Act, 1950 and arrive at its conclusion whether to grant or not to grant such
approval. Only upon such approval being granted under Section 19, the respondent
ASTC would be eligible to make further application in Form 40 of the CMV Rules, 1989
for grant of Letter of Authority in Form no. 39, if the respondent ASTC is otherwise,
found fit but by strictly following the procedure under Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989. It
is also provided that as to what fees are to be charged by the respondent ASTC in the
event it is ultimately issued a Letter of Authority, the same shall also be determined
strictly in terms of Rule 81 of the CMV Rules, 1989, as amended.
8. In the backdrop of the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2018 passed in the writ
petition, W.P.[C] no. 1395/2018, the respondent ASTC submitted the proposal to the
State Government in the Transport Department for grant of approval to it under Section
19 of the RTC Act, 1950 to undertake the activity of operating Authorized Testing
Stations in each of the districts of Assam along with a copy of the Judgment and Order
dated 27.09.2018. Upon receipt of the proposal, the impugned notification dated
17.12.2018 is stated to have been issued. As mentioned above, making an assailment on
the afore-mentioned Notification dated 17.12.2018, the instant writ petition has been
Page No.# 8/40
instituted.
9. I have heard Mr. Parthiv K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.P.
Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General,
Assam; & Mr. J. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, ASTC assisted by Ms. M.D. Bora, learned
Standing Counsel, Transport Department; and Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the
respondents.
10. Before adverting to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, it appears apposite to make references to some of the statutory provisions
which are found to be of import and relevance for the lis. Section 59[1] of the MV Act,
1988 has empowered the Central Government to fix the age limit of motor vehicle. It
has provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the public safety,
convenience and objects of the MV Act, 1988 by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify the life of a motor vehicle reckoned from the date of its manufacture, after
expiry of which the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirements
of the MV Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder, provided that the Central
Government may specify different ages for different classes or different types of motor
vehicles. Section 59[3] has prescribed that notwithstanding anything contained in
Section 56, no prescribed authority or Authorized Testing Station shall grant a Certificate
of Fitness to a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of any notification issued
under Section 59[1]. Section 60 has provided for registration of vehicles belonging to the
Central Government.
10.1. As per Section 39 of the MV Act, 1988, a Certificate of Registration is mandatory
for a motor vehicle. Couched in negative terms, it has inter alia stipulated that no person
shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit a
motor vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is
registered in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of the MV Act, 1988.
10.2. Section 56 has provided for Certificate of Fitness of Transport Vehicle, which
Page No.# 9/40
means either a public service vehicle or a goods carriage or an educational institution
bus or a private service vehicle. As per sub-section [1] thereof, subject to the provisions
of Section 59 and Section 60, a Transport Vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly
registered for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a Certificate of Fitness in such
form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central
Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an Authorized Testing Station
mentioned in sub-section [2], to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being
with all the requirements of the MV Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder, provided
that where the prescribed authority or the Authorized Testing Station refuses to issue
such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons for such refusal.
10.3. Sub-section [2] of Section 56 has referred to the Authorised Testing Station.
'Authorized Testing Station' means a vehicle service station or public or private garage
which the State Government, having regard to the experience, training and ability of the
operator of such station or garage and the testing equipment and the testing personnel
therein, may specify in accordance with the Rules made by the Central Government for
regulation and control of such stations or garages. As the other sub-sections, that is,
sub-section [3], sub-section [4] and sub-section [5] of Section 56 are not relevant for
the purpose of the case in hand, they are not referred to herein for the sake of brevity.
10.4. Thus, from the afore-mentioned provisions of the MV Act, 1988, it is clear that a
Transport Vehicle for the purpose of its valid registration, requires a Certificate of Fitness
issued by the prescribed authority or an Authorized Testing Station.
11. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted
that the Court in its Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2018 rendered in the writ petition,
W.P.[C] no. 1395/2018 had set aside the letter dated 20.11.2017 and the Notification
dated 11.01.2018 on the ground that the authorities in the State Government who
issued those, were not the Registering Authority as envisaged under Rule 63 of the CMV
Rules, 1989. The Court had, however, observed that the activity of operating the
Authorised Testing Station is a permissible activity under Section 19[2][m] of the RTC
Page No.# 10/40
Act, 1950 for the respondent Corporation to undertake, subject to due approval of the
State Government and upon due approval being granted by the State Government under
Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950, the respondent Corporation shall be eligible to make
further application in Form 40 for grant of a Letter of Authority under Form 39 of the
CMV Rules, 1989 which has to be considered strictly in terms of the procedure laid down
in Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989. Pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated
27.09.2018, the respondent Corporation filed the application dated 02.11.2018 seeking
approval of the State Government under Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950 to undertake
the activity of operating Authorized Testing Stations in each of the districts of Assam and
it was pursuant thereto, the impugned Notification dated 07.12.2018 came to be issued
by the State Government granting approval under Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950 to
the respondent Corporation to operate Authorised Testing Stations in each of the
districts of Assam.
11.1. By referring to the Judgment dated 02.02.2021 rendered by a Division Bench on
Reference in the instant writ petition pursuant to difference of opinion expressed by the
learned Single Judge earlier in the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2019 in the present
writ petition about the correctness of the observations made and conclusions arrived at
by the learned Single Judge in the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2018 passed in the
writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1395/2018, about which reference would be made in the later
part of this order, Mr. Goswami has submitted that the Division Bench in its Judgment on
Reference has confined its discussion and findings around the issue as to whether the
respondent Corporation would be legally entitled to carry on the activity of Authorized
Testing Stations under the RTC Act, 1950, more particularly, Section 19 thereof. The
Division Bench has held that Section 19[2][m] of the RTC Act, 1950 has empowered the
respondent ASTC to venture or foray into the activity of operating an Authorised Testing
Station for the purpose of Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988 subject, however, to prior
approval of the State Government as well as subject to entitlement of Letter of Authority
in terms of Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 and if any such approval is granted, the
respondent Corporation as an applicant has to seek a Letter of Authority under Rule 63
of the CMV Rules, 1989. Such application would then, has to be considered by the
Page No.# 11/40
concerned authority, that is, 'the Registering Authority' strictly in accordance with the
procedure provided in Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989.
11.2. It is his submission that the impugned Notification dated 17.12.2018 is untenable
in law on a number of grounds, firstly, it is evident from the contents of the impugned
Notification dated 17.12.2018 that the said authority has dealt with and rendered
findings on the issue of qualification and eligibility of the respondent Corporation to
operate the activity of an Authorised Testing Station, which are issues within the
exclusive domain of the Registering Authority viz. the District Transport Officer [DTOs] in
terms of the Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 and it goes to show that the said authority
has acted in excess of its jurisdiction; secondly, from the text and tenor of the
Communication dated 28.12.2018 issued from the office of the Commissioner of
Transport to all the District Transport Officers [DTOs] with copies to all the stakeholders,
it is clearly demonstrable that the said authority has sought to present a picture of fait
accompli to the Registering Authority, thereby, asking the Registering Authority, that is,
the DTOs to grant a Letter of Authority straightway to the respondent Corporation under
Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 leaving no amount of discretionary statutory power for
the Registering Authority, that is, the DTOs to exercise with his independent judgment
on the applications submitted by the respondent Corporation in Form 40 under Rule 63
of the CMV Rules, 1989. Projecting so, the learned counsel for the petitioners has
contended that the same is totally contrary to the scheme contained in Rule 63 of the
CMV Rules, 1989 as well as the settled position of law that an authority while exercising
statutory power must exercise its independent judgment without being influenced by
any authority. To buttress his such submissions, Mr. Goswami has relied on the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in The Purtabpore Co. Ltd. vs. Cane
Commissioner of Bihar and others, reported in 1996 [1] SCC 308.
11.3. It is his further contention that the Registering Authority is an independent
authority while exercising its statutory power under Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989.
Thus, while considering an application seeking a Letter of Authority for operating the
activity of an Authorized Testing Station, the Registering Authority is required in law to
Page No.# 12/40
exercise its independent judgment on the issue of qualification and eligibility of an
applicant without being influenced in any manner by any other authority including the
State Government. It has been contended that the impugned Notification dated
17.12.2018 which has recorded findings on the qualification and eligibility of the
respondent Corporation qua the requirements prescribed under Rule 63 of the CMV
Rules, 1989 is wholly without authority of law and in excess of jurisdiction.
11.4. It has been further urged on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned
Notification dated 17.12.2018 is also in violation of the Judgment and Order dated
27.09.2018 rendered in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1395/2018 in so far as the matter
of permission to the respondent ASTC to realize service charges @ Rs. 300/- in respect
of Light Motor Vehicles [LMVs] and @ Rs. 500/- in respect of Medium and Heavy Motor
Vehicles [MMVs & HMVs] are concerned, apart from statutory fees prescribed by the
Transport Department, Government of Assam. When provision was made for similar
service charges in the earlier impugned Notification dated 11.01.2018, since set aside,
the Court in its Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2018 has clearly held that such
prescription of fees would be a matter within the ambit of Rule 81 of the CMV Rules,
1989 and not a matter within the ambit of Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950. As the
Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2018 has since attained finality, the issue of service
charge could not have been gone into again before a Letter of Authority is granted by
the Registering Authority in accordance with law. The contention advanced on behalf of
the respondent Corporation based of the proviso to Rule 81 of the CMV Rules, 1989 is
misconceived. The reliance of the respondent Corporation on it which has inter alia
provided that the State may also levy the additional amount to cover the cost of
automation and technology utilized for conducting the testing or providing value added
service is premature and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case in the
absence of any tangible materials to show that the respondent Corporation has utilized
or incurred any additional cost on automation and technology for conducting the testing
or providing value added services.
11.5. Mr. Goswami has drawn attention to the aspect of conflict of interest by bringing
Page No.# 13/40
reference to the entry at Serial no. 6 of Form 40. According him, the answer given
thereto would be a relevant consideration to be gone into by the Registering Authority
while dealing with an application seeking a Letter of Authority under Rule 63 of the CMV
Rules, 1989 and the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the Judgment
delivered on Reference.
11.6. With the above submissions, Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners has submitted that the impugned Notification dated 17.12.2018 is not
sustainable in law and therefore, the same is required to be set aside and quashed.
12. In response, Mr. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam has raised a question
about the locus standi of the two petitioners to challenge the Notification dated
17.12.2018 granting approval to the respondent ASTC by the State Government to set
up Authorized Testing Stations. He has contended that the petitioners have failed to
show any situation whereunder any of their legal rights has been violated. While the
petitioner no. 1 has claimed to be a holder of a Public Carriage permit, the petitioner no.
2 has claimed that he has a Contract Carriage permit. On the other hand, the
respondent Corporation is in the operation of State Carriages. In the event the
respondent ASTC is allowed by the competent authority to operate Authorized Testing
Stations to issue Certificates of Fitness to vehicles, then it would be an additional option
for motor vehicle owners to get their vehicles tested and to obtain Certificate of Fitness,
apart from the existing arrangement already available with the Registering Authority i.e.
the Office of the District Transport Officer [DTO] in each district within the State of
Assam. It is, thus, submitted that the interest of the petitioners is not going to be
affected in any manner by the Notification dated 17.12.2018. The proceedings initiated
by the petitioners is, thus, a proxy litigation. The petitioners do not fall in the bracket of
an aggrieved person., he has contended.
12.1. He has submitted, by referring to the definition provided for 'Authorised Testing
Stations' in sub-section [2] of Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988, that the State
Government being satisfied with the experience and ability of the respondent
Page No.# 14/40
Corporation and availability of qualified, trained and experienced personnel and
engineers under its employment and disposal, accorded approval in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950. On being granted such
approval, the respondent Corporation in terms of Rule 63[2] of the CMV Rules, 1989,
has made applications in Form 40 to the respective District Transport Officers [DTOs] for
grant of a Letter of Authority each under sub-rule [1] of Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989.
As the District Transport Officer [DTO] for a particular district is the Registering Authority
for the purpose of grant of such Letter of Authority, it is the Registering Authority i.e. the
DTO in each district who under sub-rule [5] of Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 on
receipt of such application under Rule 63[2], has to satisfy himself as to whether the
applicant has complied with the requirements of Rule 63[3] and Rule 63[4] of the CMV
Rules, 1989 to have the eligibility for grant of a Letter of Authority in Form 39 of the
CMV Rules, 1989 or not. In the case in hand, the Registering Authority is yet to carry out
such exercise. But the petitioners here have, in a hurry, instituted the writ proceedings
at an anterior point of time. Contending so, the learned Advocate General has submitted
that the writ petition is premature in nature and is liable to be dismissed on that ground
itself.
12.2. Projecting the case of the State, learned Advocate General has submitted that the
State Government has a mandate to provide road safety to all and to reduce road
fatalities. To achieve such objectives, better and qualitative fitness test for vehicles is the
first and foremost requirement. Emphasis has been made in the governing statutes for a
Certificate of Fitness by a Transport Vehicle from time to time. The State registers 5.20
lakhs [approx.] nos. of vehicles every year out of which 9% [approx.], that is, 47,000
[approx.] vehicles are commercial vehicles. By referring to the statistics given in the
counter affidavit, he has submitted that the total vehicles available and registered in the
State of Assam till March, 2019 was 37.10 lakhs [approx.] and the total number of
commercial vehicles were around 3,33,090 [approx.]. There are only 44 nos. of Motor
Vehicle Inspectors [MVIs] in Assam to check fitness of these large nos. of commercial
vehicles and the number of MVIs are, thus, grossly inadequate as these MVIs are also
required to check the other vehicles, accident cases and other transport related
Page No.# 15/40
departmental and administrative works connected to transport and field works. That
apart, the District Transport Offices are having space constraints and most of these
offices are operating from rented houses with more space constraints and as a result,
the vehicles are normally inspected on the roadsides. Since a Certificate of Fitness of a
Transport Vehicle is relatable to safety of public at large, the State Government had
considered the matter of outsourcing about issuance of Certificate of Fitness. In view of
the fact that the MV Act, 1988 has provisions for outsourcing such services and following
a resolution taken in a meeting of Group of Ministers at all India level the State
Government considered the matter of granting approval to the respondent ASTC, a
statutory Road Transport Corporation under the RTC Act, 1950 under Section 19 thereof.
12.3. He has submitted that after considering all the aspects and taking into account the
infrastructure and manpower including skilled mechanics and engineers available with
the respondent ASTC, the State Government took the decision to allow it to set up
Authorized Testing Stations to issue Certificate of Fitness, subject to compliance of all
the statutory requirements. While arriving at the decision to grant or not to grant
approval under Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950, the State Government took into
consideration the facts that the respondent Corporation has 49 nos. of qualified
Automobile Engineers from the ranks of Assistant Engineer up to Chief Engineer; 36 nos.
of Foreman; 420 nos. of Skilled Mechanics; and 21 nos. of Mechanic Helpers and has
one Central Workshop; 4 nos. of Divisional Workshops and 14 nos. of Maintenance
Centres. Having reached a satisfaction on that basis, the respondent Corporation has
been allowed to foray into the activity of operating the Authorized Testing Stations after
following due procedure and meeting the statutory norms. The State Government is of
the view that with availability of more Authorized Testing Stations vis-à-vis inadequate
strength of MVIs, would provide easy access and better facilities for quality fitness test
for vehicles which would, in turn, improve the road safety scenario.
12.4. As regards the letter dated 28.12.2018 of the Commissioner of Transport, Assam is
concerned, it is submitted that by the said letter, the respective Registering Authority,
that is, the DTO has only been informed to the effect that the respondent ASTC is going
Page No.# 16/40
to set up Authorized Testing Stations in each of the districts of Assam pursuant to the
Notification dated 17.12.2018. The DTOs have been requested to take necessary steps
for early implementation of the project in consultation with the District Information
Officer, National Informatics Centre [NIC] with the further request to furnish the Head of
Account. From the contents of the letter dated 28.12.2018, it cannot be perceived that it
contains a dictate for the respective Registering Authority to grant a Letter of Authority
in Form 39 invariably without exercise of the independent statutory power by the
Registering Authority conferred on it.
12.5. On the events subsequent to the Notification dated 17.12.2018, it is submitted by
Mr. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, ASTC that pursuant to the approval granted by the
Transport Department to foray into the activity of operating Authorized Testing Stations,
the respondent ASTC took steps for setting up Authorized Testing Stations by filing
applications in Form 40 of the CMV Rules, 1989 with the respective Registering Authority
in 6 [six] of the districts of Assam. The Registering Authorities of the respective district
have been requested to issue username and password for log in to 'Vahan' in favour of
the designated officials of the ASTC so that the Authorized Testing Stations can be
operated.
12.6. While contending that the issue of conflict of interest is not required to be gone
into at the present proceedings in view of the observations already made by the Division
Bench on Reference, the learned Advocate General has fairly admitted that provision
permitting the ASTC in previous Notification dated 11.01.2018 and the subsequent
Notification dated 17.12.2018 to realize service charges are similarly worded and that
part of the Notification dated 11.01.2018 is also set aside by the Judgment and order
dated 27.09.2018 delivered in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1395/2018.
13. I have duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties
and have also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their
respective pleadings. I have also gone through the decisions cited at the Bar.
Page No.# 17/40
14. It appears appropriate, at this stage, to mention that the present writ petition was
earlier heard and disposed of by a Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2019 rendered by a
coordinate bench. In the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2019, the coordinate bench
did not agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned single judge in the
Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2018 rendered in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no.
1395/2018. In view of such differences in opinion, the coordinate bench by its Judgment
and Order dated 15.11.2019 gave an opinion that the issue should be placed before the
Hon'ble Chief Justice to refer it to a larger bench for a conclusive decision on the issue.
As a result, the writ petition came to be placed before a Division Bench by way of
Reference.
15. The coordinate bench in its Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2019 had, inter alia,
observed as under :-
8. The aforesaid decision contained in the letter dated 20.11.2017 and 11.01.2018 was
the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition, being WP(C) 1395/2018, instituted
by certain other petitioners being Association of different bus owners. This Court vide
judgment and order date 27.09.2018, had set aside the impugned communications.
However, the Court had come to a finding that the ASTC was entitled to venture into
any activity including the activity of undertaking an Authorized Testing Station and
accordingly observed that there shall not be a bar on the part of the ASTC to make an
appropriate application under Section 19 of the Act of 1950 and in such event, the
State Government was directed to follow the procedure laid down in Section 19 and
come to a findingas to whether to grant or not to grant such approval. The
observations and considerations made in the aforesaid judgment would be taken up
for discussion at a later stage.
15.1. After referring and considering the provisions contained in Section 2 and Section
19 of the RTC Act, 1950; Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988; Rule 62 and Rule 63 of the
CMV Rules, 1989; and Rule 2, Rule 26, Rule 79 and Rule 87 of the Assam Motor Vehicle
Rules, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Assam MV Rules, 2003', for short]; along
Page No.# 18/40
with the observations made by the other coordinate bench in the Judgment and Order
dated 27.09.2018 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1395/2018, the second
coordinate bench had gone on to observe in the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2019
in the following manner :-
22. The aforesaid observation of the learned Single Judge is required to be
examined from the point of view of the statute holding the field. The statements
of objects and reasons of the Road Transport Corporation Act of 1950 are to
provide efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated system of road
transport service. Road transport service itself has been defined in Section 2 [e] of
the said Act to mean a service carrying passengers or goods or both by road in
vehicles for hire or reward. 'Ancillary Service' as defined in Section 2 [a] is to
mean subsidiary service which provides amenities or facilities to persons making
use of any road transport service of a Corporation. Though various powers have
been vested with the Corporation by Section 19 including to provide for Ancillary
Service under Section 19 [1] [b] or even other things to facilitate the proper
carrying on of the business of the Corporation under Section 19 [2][m], this Court
is unable to agree with the conclusion that the activity of running an Authorized
Testing Station would either be an Ancillary Service or a thing to facilitate the
proper carrying on of the business of the Corporation. If a conclusion is arrived
that there is no such power on the part of the Road Transport Corporations
[ASTC herein], the requirements of further adjudication will not arise. It may be
mentioned on the basis of the observation made by the learned Single Judge in
the earlier judgment that ASTC was entitled to venture into the activity of
operating an Authorized Testing Station.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the fact that the finding of the
learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 27.09.2018 is unable to be
agreed upon by this Court with regard to the observation that ASTC is entitled to
carry on the business of running an Authorized Testing Station, this Court is of
the opinion that the issue may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to refer
it to a larger Bench for a conclusive decision on the issue.
Page No.# 19/40
16. The Division Bench when the matter reached before it by way of Reference, had
found the salient point for determination to be as to whether under the scheme of the
RTC Act, 1950; the MV Act, 1988; the CMV Rules, 1989; and the Assam MV Rules, 2003;
the ASTC can venture into the activity of operating an 'Authorised Testing Station' and/or
whether there was any legal embargo for the ASTC to foray into the said activity for the
purpose of issuance or renewal of a Certificate of Fitness to a Transport Vehicle. The
Division Bench confined itself on the issue as to whether it was legally permissible for an
entity like the ASTC to do activity as an operator of an Authorised Testing Station and
whether there was legal embargo forbidding the ASTC to venture into the said activity.
To answer the Reference, the Division Bench inter alia considered the provisions of [a]
Section 18 and Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950, more particularly, Section 19[2][m] and
Section 19[3][i] thereof; [b] Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988; [c] Rule 63 and Form
39/40 of the CMV Rules, 1989; and [d] Rule 26 of the Assam MV Rules, 2003; along
with others.
16.1. After an elaborate discussion and recording its reasons, the Division Bench had
answered the Reference by its Judgment dated 02.02.2021 in the following terms :-
24. For the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation to hold that clause (m) of sub-
section [2] of section 19, not clause [i] of sub-section [3] of Section 19, of the
Transport Corporations Act, empowers ASTC, being a Corporation established under
Section 3 of the said Act, to venture or foray into the activity of operating an
authorised testing station for the purposes of Section 56 of the 1988 Act subject,
however, to prior approval of the State Government as well as subject to entitlement
to letter of authority in terms of Rule 63 of the Central Rules. The words 'to do all
other things' in clause [m] of sub-section [2] of section 19 of the Transport
Corporations Act would take within its fold the activity of ASTC to operate
'Authorised Testing Station' and the word 'business' therein cannot be given a
meaning by restricting it to business relatable to 'road transport services' and
'ancillary service', so defined in the said Act. No legal embargo is discerned or
Page No.# 20/40
perceived prohibiting ASTC from operating Authorised Testing Station, after the
grant of Letter of Authority in accordance with law.
25. The reference stands accordingly answered. Registry is directed to place the
matter before the appropriate Bench for consideration of the writ petition on its
factual matrix.
17. The Judgment dated 02.02.2021 rendered by the Division Bench on Reference in
the present writ petition, that is, W.P.[C] no. 167/2019 had been assailed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the petitioner no. 2 herein in a special leave to
appeal being SLP [C] no. 2820/2021. When the SLP [C] no. 2820/2021 was listed for
hearing on 25.02.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recorded its disinclination to
interfere with the Judgment dated 02.02.2021 made by the Division Bench on Reference
and dismissed the special leave petition accordingly. As a result of such dismissal, the
decision rendered by the Division Bench on Reference is to be held to have attained
finality and is binding.
18. The preliminary objection from the respondents' sides is with regard to the
maintainability of the writ petition including locus standi of the petitioners. The objection
on locus was also raised from the respondents' sides earlier. The co-ordinate Bench in
the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2019, rendered earlier, negated the said objection
regarding locus of the petitioners on the premise that the present litigation was a
continuation of the earlier writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1395/2018, such objection could not
be sustained and be a hurdle in determination of the lis. The principles of res judicata is
engrafted in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and it bars the court from
deciding issues which have been directly or indirectly in issue in an earlier proceeding
between the same parties or parties claiming under the same title and have been finally
decided. It is well established that the principles of res judicata, which Section 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 embodies, are also applicable to writ petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is held in Satyadhyan Ghosal and others vs.
Deorjin Debi [Smt] and another, reported in AIR 1960 SC 941, that the principle of res
Page No.# 21/40
judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to the extent that a
court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a
matter in one way will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a
subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Reiterating the said principle, it is held in
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in [2005] 1
SCC 444, that the principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to
judicial decisions. The principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated is of
general application and is not limited by the specific words of Section 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure in this respect. For the above reasons, the objection of maintainability of
the writ petition including lack of locus of the petitioners is not accepted.
19. For the purpose of further deliberation and also in order to appreciate the rival
submissions of the parties, it appears necessary to quote the provisions contained in
Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988 and Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 herein below.
19.1. As mentioned hereinabove, Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988 has provided for
Certificate of Fitness of Transport Vehicles and it reads as under :-
Section 56 - Certificate of Fitness of Transport Vehicles -
[1] Subject to the provisions of Sections 59 and 60, a Transport Vehicle shall not be
deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a
Certificate of Fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as
may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or
by an Authorised Testing Station mentioned in sub-section [2], to the effect that the
vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules
made thereunder:
Provided that where the prescribed authority or The Authorised Testing Station
refuses is issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its
reasons in writing for such refusal.
[2] The "Authorised Testing Station" referred to in sub-section [1] means a
Page No.# 22/40
vehicle service station or public or private garage which the State Government,
having regard to the experience, training and ability of the operator of such station or
garage and the testing equipment and the testing personnel therein, may specify in
accordance with the rules made by the Central Government for regulation and control
of such stations or garages.
[3] Subject to the provisions of sub-section [4], a Certificate of Fitness shall
remain effective for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government
having regard to the objects of this Act.
[4] The prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a
Certificate of Fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no
longer complies with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder;
and on such cancellation the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle and any permit
granted in respect of the vehicle under Chapter V shall be deemed to be suspended
until a new Certificate of Fitness has been obtained:
Provided that no such cancellation shall be made by the prescribed authority unless
such prescribed authority holds such technical qualification as may be prescribed or
where the prescribed authority does not hold such technical qualification on the basis
of the report of an officer having such qualifications.
[5] A Certificate of Fitness issued under this Act shall, while it remains effective,
be valid throughout India.
19.2. Chapter III of the CMV Rules, 1989 pertains to Registration of Motor Vehicles. Rule
62 to Rule 73 containing in Chapter III are relatable to Certificate of Fitness. Rule 62 is
with regard to validity of a Certificate of Fitness providing inter alia that a Certificate of
Fitness in respect of a Transport Vehicle granted under Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988
has to be in Form 38 and such Certificate of Fitness when granted or renewed shall be
valid for a period [a] two years in respect of a new Transport Vehicle; [b] two years for
vehicles upto eight years old and one year for vehicles older than eight years in case of
renewal of a Certificate of Fitness in respect of Transport Vehicles. Rule 63 is with regard
Page No.# 23/40
to regulation and control of Authorised Testing Stations and it reads, as it existed prior
to the Central Motor Vehicles [Twenty First Amendment] Rules, 2021, as under :-
Rule 63 - Regulation and Control of Authorised Testing Stations -
[1] No operator of an Authorised Testing Station shall issue or renew a Certificate of
Fitness to a Transport Vehicle under Section 56 without a Letter of Authority in Form
39 granted by the Registering Authority.
[2] An application for grant or renewal of a Letter of Authority under sub-rule [1]
shall be made in Form 40 to the Registering Authority having jurisdiction in the area in
which the service station or garage is situated and shall be accompanied by :-
[a] the appropriate fee as specified in Rule 81;
[b] a security deposit of 1 [Rupees one lakh] in such manner as may be
specified by the State Government.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of this rule and Rules 64 to 72, the Registering
Authority means an officer not below the rank of the Regional Transport Officer of the
Motor Vehicles Department established under Section 213.
[3] A Registering Authority shall, when considering an application for the grant or
renewal of a Letter of Authority, have regard to the following matters, namely :--
[a] the applicant or at least one of the members of the staff employed by him for the
inspection of transport vehicles for the purpose of issue or renewal of Certificate of
Fitness possesses the following minimum qualifications :--
[i] a three years diploma in automobile engineering or mechanical
engineering or an equivalent qualification;
[ii] experience of minimum service of five years in an automobile workshop
undertaking repairs of heavy goods vehicles, heavy passenger motor
vehicles, medium motor vehicles and light motor vehicles;
[iii] a driving licence to drive motor cycle, heavy passenger motor vehicle
and heavy goods vehicle with a minimum driving experience of not less than
five years;
[iv] thorough knowledge of the Act and the rules made thereunder,
especially the Chapters relating to registration of motor vehicles and
Page No.# 24/40
construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles;
[b] the premises where the Authorised Testing Station is to be housed is
either owned by the applicant or is taken on lease by him or is hired in his name
and it has 2 [minimum of one acre of land] for administrative section, reception
room and sanitary block and space for erection of testing equipments and other
apparatus;
[c] inspection lanes are provided adjacent to the building in the same
compound or at other places approved by the Registering Authority;
[d] testing equipments and apparatus are installed in such manner that vehicles
may pass through with ease and speed;
[e] the applicant maintains in good condition, the equipment and
apparatus for undertaking test pertaining to exhaust gas, engine tuning, engine
analysis, smoke emission, brake system, head-lights, wheel alignments,
compressors, speedometers and other like components;
[f] the financial resources of the applicant are sufficient to provide for its
continued maintenance;
[g] the applicant maintains an up-to-date copy of the Act, these Rules and
the concerned State Motor Vehicles Rules.
[4] The Registering Authority shall also, when considering an application under this
rule, take into consideration the fact that the setting up of the Authorised Testing
Station will improve the availability of testing facilities in the area both in relation to
the number of vehicles and proximity to such facilities.
[5] The Registering Authority may, on receipt of an application under sub-rule [2]
and after satisfying himself that the applicant has complied with the requirements of
sub-rules [3] and [4], grant or renew the Letter of Authority in Form 39 :
Provided that no application for a Letter of Authority shall be refused by the
Registering Authority unless the applicant is given an opportunity of being heard and
reasons for such refusal are given in writing by the Registering Authority.
Page No.# 25/40
20. The matter of issuance of Certificate of Fitness is provided in Rule 26 of the Assam
MV Rules, 2003. As per Rule 26[i], a Certificate of Fitness is to be issued or renewed on
receipt of an application to the Motor Vehicle Inspector through the Registering Authority
at least 30 days ahead of the expiry of the Certificate of Fitness in Form no. 21 and
Form no. 21[A], as the case may be, by the officer of the Transport [Motor Vehicle]
Department not below the Rank of the Motor Vehicle Inspector or an Authorised Testing
Station, having a Letter of Authority issued under sub-section [2] of Section 56 of the
MV Act, 1988 read with Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 in Form 39 as prescribed in the
CMV Rules to the effect the vehicle complies with all the requirements of the MV Act,
1988 and the rules made thereunder together with the type of vehicle inspected. The
Certificate of Fitness issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector is to be countersigned by the
DTO and the DTO has to keep a record of each Certificate of Fitness issued. It further
provides that where the authority prescribed for issuance or renewal of the Certificate of
Fitness refuses to issue such Certificate of Fitness, then such authority has to furnish the
owner of the vehicle with his reasons in writing for such refusal in Form no. 21[C]. Rule
26[ii] has inter alia prescribed that a Certificate of Fitness can be issued to a vehicle only
at the office of the DTO where the vehicle is either registered or recorded.
21. It is also necessary to have a look at the format provided in Form 40, appended in
the CMV Rules, 1989, by which an applicant has to apply for grant or renewal of Letter
of Authority in terms of Rule 63[2] of the CMV Rules, 1989. The prescribed format
provided in Form 40 is as under :-
FORM 40
[See rule 63 (2)]
APPLICATION FORM FOR GRANT OR RENEWAL
OF LETTER OF AUTHORITY
To
The Registering Authority,
.................................................
.................................................
Page No.# 26/40 I/We..................... address .................................................. hereby submit the following information, namely: -
1. Name of the applicant
2. Son/wife/daughter of
3. Address (proof to be enclosed)
4. Qualification of the applicant
5. Experience in automobile workshop
6. Whether involved/connected directly or indirectly in transport business
7. Machinery and equipment
8. Staff engaged in different cadres: -
[i] Manager [ii] Foreman [iii] Mechanic [iv] Helpers [v] Other administrative staff
9. Particulars of a person as required under clause [a] of sub-rule [3] of Rule 63 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules [a] Name [b] Age [c] Qualification in automobile engineering [d] Actual experience in automobile workshop [e] Name of firm with full address [f] Driving experience of various types of transport -
[i] Driving licence number [ii] Issued by [iii] Date of issue [iv] Type of vehicle [v] Period of validity of driving licence [vi] Endorsement on driving licence, if any
10. Proof of land owned by or hired by the applicant
11. Whether garage is equipped with Page No.# 27/40 following facilities: -
[i] Water supply [ii] Electricity [iii] Toilet [iv] Rest room
12. Sources of finance
13. If application is for the renewal of letter of authority, furnish following particulars, namely: --
[i] Number of existing letter of authority [ii] Date of issue [iii] Period of validity [iv] If application is not submitted within time, state the reasons [v] Whether letter of authority suspended/ cancelled/ surrendered earlier. Further details
14. I hereby solemnly declare that the information given above is true and correct. Further, I hereby declare that I shall abide by the rules, regulations and conditions attached to the letter of authority and as prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Dated Signature of the Applicant
22. Subsequent to the judgment and order dated 27.09.2018 rendered in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1395/2018, the respondent Corporation through its Managing Director submitted a proposal before the State Government in the Transport Department on 02.11.2018 vide Ref no. ASTC/HO/FC/1582/17/0683 dated 02.11.2018 to accord approval to it under the provision of Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950 to undertake the activity of operating Authorised Testing Stations in each of the districts of Assam. By Page No.# 28/40 referring to the statutory requirement envisaged under Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950 to obtain approval and the observations made in the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2018 [supra], the respondent Corporation apprised the State Government that in the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2018 [supra], it was observed there is an entitlement of the respondent Corporation to venture into the activity of operating an Authorised Testing Station, subject to an approval for the same by the State Government which is a statutory requirement under Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950. The proposal had also made mention of the observations made in the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2018 [supra] to the effect that in the event the respondent Corporation would submit such a proposal/application, the authorities in the State Government shall strictly follow the procedure required under Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950 and shall arrive at its conclusion as to whether to grant or not to grant such approval.
22.1. In the proposal so submitted on 02.11.2018, the respondent Corporation highlighted the fact of its establishment as a Road Transport Corporation under Section 3 of the RTC Act, 1950 as a State Government Undertaking and a Public Utility Service. The respondent Corporation had apprised about the decision taken by the Management of the respondent Corporation implementing various activities to uplift its financial position. It was mentioned that the ASTC was desirous to undertake the activity of operating Authorised Testing Stations and for that purpose, decision was taken by the Management to open/establish Authorised Testing Stations in all districts of Assam under the provisions of the MV Act, 1988 and the CMV Rules, 1989 for running the business of issuance of Certificate of Fitness to commercial Transport Vehicles / any other vehicles including the ASTC vehicles and the vehicles operating under the banner of ASTC.
22.2. In the proposal so submitted, the details of the infrastructure possessed by the ASTC were mentioned. It was mentioned that the ASTC owned/possessed land and building with stations, workshops and maintenance centres in all districts throughout the State of Assam. It was stated that the Corporation had sufficient experienced manpower, staff, qualified technical officers, artisans including automobile engineers, etc. to be engaged in different cadres such as Manager, Foreman, Mechanic, Helper and other Page No.# 29/40 administrative staff, etc. as would be required for operation of such Authorised Testing Stations under the relevant Acts and the Rules. The State Government was apprised that the Corporation had sufficient space and infrastructure, machinery and equipment available at its workshops/stations and maintenance centres to carry out the business of Authorised Testing Stations in each district of Assam. In support of its claim regarding availability of personnel to operate Authorised Testing Stations, a list of ASTC Engineers and other staff at different locations was attached as Enclosure-A with the proposal. It was apprised that after receipt of approval from the State Government under Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950, the Corporation would carry out all the formal steps and works strictly as required to be done before the concerned competent authorities as per the provisions of the MV Act, 1988 and the CMV Rules, 1989 for the purpose of obtaining the Letter of Authority for establishment of the Authorised Testing Stations in all districts of Assam.
23. It was after receipt of the above proposal from the respondent Corporation on 02.11.2018, the State Government in the Transport Department in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950 accorded approval to the respondent ASTC vide the impugned notification dated 17.12.2018 to operate Authorised Testing Stations in each district of Assam. The contents of the impugned notification dated 17.12.2018 have already been mentioned in paragraph 2 hereinabove.
24. It can be easily seen from the format provided in Form 40 that to operate an Authorised Testing Station, the applicant has to provide information required by different clauses therein. Apart from the general details, information is to be provided in respect of [a] machinery and equipment [under Clause 7]; [b] staff engaged in different cadres :
[i] Manager, [ii] Foreman, [iii] Mechanic, [iv] Helpers, and [v] other administrative staff [under Clause 8]; [c] Proof of land, owned or hired [under Clause 10]; [d] whether the garage is equipped with facilities of : [i] water supply, [ii] electricity, [iii] toilet, and [iv] restroom [under Clause 11]; [e] sources of finance [under Clause 12], etc. It is also the statutory requirement, as per Form 40, to provide particulars of a person under Clause [a] of sub-rule [3] of Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989. The Division Bench in its Page No.# 30/40 judgment dated 02.02.2021 has already held that Clause [m] of sub-section [2] of Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950 has empowered the ASTC, being a Corporation established under Section 3 of the said Act, to venture or foray into the activity of operating an Authorised Testing Station for the purposes of Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988, subject to prior approval of the State Government as well as subject to entitlement to a Letter of Authority in terms of Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989.
25. When a proposal is received from an applicant like the respondent ASTC under Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950, the State Government is obligated to look into the proposal carefully and to consider the same by taking into account the statutory framework within which a Road Transport Corporation like the respondent ASTC can be permitted and under which an Authorised Testing Station so contemplated, is required to operate. It is also incumbent on the part of the State Government to examine and to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction as to whether the applicant [for example, the ASTC in the case in hand] can be permitted under the RTC Act, 1950 to venture or foray in the activity of operating an Authorised Testing Station and also to a certain extent that if permitted, whether it has the wherewithal of meeting the requirements of being granted a Letter of Authority by the competent authority to operate an Authorised Testing Station. For the said purpose, there is also requirement to look into the provisions of Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950; Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989; and Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988. In the backdrop of the previous litigation, there was necessity to look into the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2018 rendered in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1395/2018 as well the other preceding events. The Notification dated 17.12.2018 has recorded that it was after careful perusal and examination of the above vis-à-vis the proposal, the Governor of Assam in exercise of the power conferred under Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950 is pleased to accord approval to the respondent ASTC to operate Authorised Testing Stations in each district of Assam with the further condition that the respondent ASTC would follow the procedure as prescribed under Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 and Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988. It may be mentioned that prior to accord of such approval by the Notification dated 17.12.2018, the issue whether the respondent ASTC can venture or foray into the activity of operating an Authorized Page No.# 31/40 Testing Station under Section 19[2][m] of the RTC Act, 1950 had received judicial imprimatur. It is in such background, the assailment made by the petitioners herein to the Notification dated 17.12.2018 to the effect that the State Government while granting the approval vide the Notification dated 17.12.2018, has dealt with and rendered findings on the issue of qualification and eligibility of the respondent Corporation to operate the activity of an Authorised Testing Station, which has the effect of influencing the independent decision-making power vested in the Registering Authority under Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 to issue a Letter of Authority for operating the activity of an Authorised Testing Station is to be examined.
26. In The Purtabpure Co. Ltd. [supra], the Cane Commissioner, Bihar made an order reserving certain villages in favour of the appellant under Clause 6[1][a] of the Sugar Cane [Control] Order, 1966. For two seasons : 1964-1965 and 1965-1966, the fifth respondent challenged the validity of the order of the Cane Commissioner in the High Court, but the case was adjourned. Later, both parties made representations to the Chief Minister and the Cane Commissioner, who recommended to the Chief Minister against interfering with the reservation already made. The Chief Minister directed the Cane Commissioner to divide the area into two portions and allot one portion to the fifth respondent. On the basis of that direction, the Cane Commissioner made the orders. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that the Cane Commissioner was of a definite view earlier that the reservation made in favour of the appellant should not be disturbed with. But, the Chief Minister did not agree with that view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it was clear from the documents before it that the Chief Minister directed the Cane Commissioner to divide the reserved area into two portions and allot one portion to the fifth respondent. Pursuant to such direction, the Cane Commissioner merely carried out the orders of the Chief Minister though the orders were issued in the name of the Cane Commissioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the impugned orders though purported to have been made by the Cane Commissioner were, in fact, made by the Chief Minister and they were invalid. It has been held that the power exercisable by the Cane Commissioner under Clause 6[1] is a statutory power and he alone could have exercised that power. While exercising that power, the Cane Page No.# 32/40 Commissioner could not have abdicated his responsibility in favour of anyone - not even in favour of the State Government or the Chief Minister. The interference of the Chief Minister with the functions of the Cane Commissioner had been held to be improper.
27. The principles deducible from the decision in The Purtabpure Co. Ltd. [supra] is that the authority which has been conferred with the specific power by a governing statute to pass a particular order, can alone pass such an order and no other person, even a superior authority, can interfere with the functioning of such a statutory authority. If any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be illegal. It is also to be borne in mind that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can be logically deduced therefrom and even a slight distinction in fact or an additional or different fact may make a lot of difference in the decision-making process. The Constitution of India envisages a rule of law and all the constitutional and statutory functionaries are required to function and discharge within the constitutional limits. The RTC Act, 1950; the MV Act, 1988; the CMV Rules, 1989; and the Assam MV Rules, 2003 are laws made in relation to motor vehicles and matters relatable and ancillary to them. If any of the said statutes mentions an authority who would exercise a certain power, then such authority being a statutory authority, is bound to act strictly in terms of the provisions of the statute and it cannot act in derogation of the powers so conferred or cannot bypass or ignore the procedure laid down for exercise of such power. Thus, the legal proposition is that the authority which has been conferred with the competence under the statute alone can pass the order. In view of the democratic set up envisaged by the Constitution, if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be termed as illegal. As a corollary, it can be said that an authority vested with the power to act under the statute alone should exercise its independent judgment following the procedure prescribed therein and any interference on the part of an authority upon whom the statute does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law as it violates the constitutional scheme.
28. In the case in hand, the legal position which has attained finality is that as per Page No.# 33/40 clause [m] of sub-section [2] of Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950, the respondent ASTC can venture or foray into the activity of operating an Authorised Testing Station for the purposes of Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988, only with the prior approval of the State Government. Thus, prior approval of the State Government is a condition precedent for the respondent ASTC to venture or foray into the activity of operating an Authorised Testing Station. The approval accorded by the State Government vide the Notification dated 17.12.2018 is to a decision of the respondent ASTC contained in the proposal submitted on 02.11.2018 to venture or foray into the activity of operating an Authorised Testing Station. In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, the word, 'approval' has been explained as : Approval - the act of confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning, or consenting to some act or thing done by another. A statutory act of acceptance of approval under Section 19[2][m] of the RTC Act, 1950 requires consideration of such a proposal with due application of mind on the part of the authority to arrive at a conscious decision on the issue whether to grant approval or not to grant approval on the basis of the materials presented before it and by taking into account the extant provisions of law. When it involves a decision to grant or not to grant prior approval to the ASTC to venture or foray into the activity of operating Authorised Testing Stations for issuing Certificate of Fitness to Transport Vehicles, the empowered authority definitely has to take into consideration all the relevant statutory provisions regulating such activity vis-à-vis the credentials of the ASTC to fulfill the relevant criteria and to comply the statutory prescription or else, the exercise might result in an exercise in futility. The impugned notification dated 17.12.2018, in the considered view of the Court, has reflected consideration of the proposal qua the extant provisions of law relating to an Authorised Testing Station on the part of the authority for reaching a prima facie satisfaction that the respondent ASTC has the necessary ability and wherewithal to venture or foray into the activity of operating an Authorised Testing Station. Such reflection of prima facie satisfaction by the State Government about the ability of the respondent ASTC as an applicant, who is likely to venture or foray into the activity of operating an Authorised Testing Station is at the stage of exercise of statutory power vested in it under Section 19[2][m] of the RTC Act, 1950 and within the zone given to it Page No.# 34/40 by the statute. Thus, the observations made therein which are inevitable, cannot, by any stretch, be held to be a direction to the Registering Authority, that is, the District Transport Officer [DTO], who is statutorily empowered under Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 to issue or not to issue a Letter of Authority on an application to be submitted by the respondent ASTC in Form 40 at a future date for operating an Authorised Testing Station with the exercise of his independent judgment by taking into consideration the matters germane for it. It is demonstrable from the Notification dated 17.12.2018 itself that the prior approval has been accorded, subject to the clear condition that the respondent ASTC has to proceed further by following the procedure prescribed under Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988 and Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989, thus, leaving no semblance of doubt for the Registering Authority to exercise its own independent judgment at the time of consideration of the application to be submitted by the respondent ASTC, at a future date as per the prescribed procedure for grant or refusal of a Letter of Authority.
29. The contention of the petitioners does not deserve acceptance also for the reason that the Registering Authority under Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 is yet to consider the applications submitted by the respondent ASTC in Form 40 on 27.12.2018 for grant of Letter of Authority for operating Authorised Testing Stations at 6 [six] locations viz. Cachar, Kamrup [Metro], Darrang, Kamrup [Rural], Nagaon and Jorhat districts [vide Annexure-2, Annexure-3, Annexure-4, Annexure-5, Annexure-6, Annexure-7 & Annexure- 8 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 3 & 4] and to pass final orders on such applications granting either the Letter of Authority in Form 39 or refusing it. Thus, the legal proposition observed in The Purtabpure Co. Ltd. [supra] is found not applicable to the case in hand as it is not possible to conclude that the Registering Authority has acted in a particular manner at the behest of the State Government. A look at sub-rule [3] of Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 goes to show that it has enumerated the criteria which the Registering Authority has to take into account while considering an application for grant of a Letter of Authority and to a large extent, those criteria are objective in nature in respect of which the Registering Authority has to form its independent opinion as to whether the applicant fulfills the above objective Page No.# 35/40 criteria. Sub-rule [4] of Rule 63 would require the Registering Authority to take into consideration while considering an application for grant of a Letter of Authority, the aspect as to whether the setting up of the Authorised Testing Station would improve the availability of testing facilities in the area both in relation to the number of vehicles and proximity to such facilities. Thus, the Registering Authority as the statutory authority who is vested with the power to grant or to refuse a Letter of Authority, has to act strictly within the four corners in terms of the procedure so prescribed, in an independent manner. As the fact situation obtaining in the case has not reached to the position of grant or refusal of a Letter of Authority by the Registering Authority under Rule 63[5] of the CMV Rules, 1989, this Court is of the clear view that the petitioners have jumped the gun here by instituting the instant writ petition before the proper time, that is, prior to the exercise of the statutory power by the Registering Authority under Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989.
30. In the applications dated 27.12.2018 submitted in Form 40 by the respondent ASTC to the respective DTOs as the Registering Authority, it is noticed that a request has been made to the said authority to issue an user name and a password to log-in to Vahan to enable it to operate the Authorised Testing Station. It is averred by the respondent ASTC that the data collected during the fitness test by the ASTC would be transmitted to the DTOs through the software, Vahan as the Certificate of Fitness which would be issued by an Authorised Testing Station, would require counter signature by the Registering Authority through the software, Vahan. It is only after counter signature of the Certificate of Fitness by the Registering Authority, the same can be downloaded and handed over to the vehicle owner in compliance of Rule 26 of the Assam MV Rules, 2003. It is averred that the software also has on-line system to intimate every step progress intimation to the vehicle owners till handing over of the Certificate of Fitness. The matter of submission of the applications in Form 40 on 27.12.2018 was also intimated to the Commissioner of Transport, Assam on the same date and the Communication dated 28.12.2018 sent by the Commissioner of Transport, Assam was clearly a consequential process of such intimation. By the Communication dated 28.12.2018, the DTOs were informed that pursuant to the Notification dated 17.12.2018, Page No.# 36/40 the respondent ASTC was going to set up Authorised Testing Stations and necessary steps were asked to be taken in consultation with the District Information Officer, NIC for early implementation of the project by furnishing the Head of Account for deposit of fees, fines, etc. The action sought from the DTOs by the Communication dated 28.12.2018 is not an action which is a part of the decision-making process for grant or refusal of a Letter of Authority under Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 for the DTO as a Registering Authority. Thus, the contention of the petitioner to the effect that the text and tenor of the Communication dated 28.12.2018 had projected a picture of fait acompli cannot be countenanced and the same is rejected.
31. A submission is also advanced from the end of the petitioners that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988, have amended the CMV Rules, 1989 by the Central Motor Vehicles [Twenty First Amendment] Rules, 2021 [hereinafter referred to as 'the CMV [Amendment] Rules, 2021', for short]. With the publication of the CMV [Amendment] Rules, 2021 in the Gazette of India vide a Notification no. G.S.R. 652[E] dated 23.09.2021, they have come into force w.e.f. 25.09.2021. By Rule 2 thereof, a new sub-rule [6] has been inserted after sub-rule [5] of Rule 63 in the CMV Rules, 1989. As per the newly inserted sub-rule [6] of Rule 63, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 63, the recognition, regulation and control of Automated Testing Station, for the purpose of Section 56 of the MV Act, 1988, shall be as per Chapter XI of the CMV Rules, 1989, as amended. The definition of 'Automated Testing Station' is provided in Section 174[1][ii] of Chapter XI of the MV Act, 1988, as amended, and Section 175 contained in new Chapter XI has provided for registration procedure for Automated Testing Station. It is also submitted that clause [b] of sub-rule [1] of Rule 62 has come to be substituted by the Central Motor Vehicles [Eighth Amendment] Rules, 2022 [hereinafter referred to as 'the CMV [Amendment] Rules, 2022', for short], notified by a Notification no. G.S.R. 272[E] dated 05.04.2022. It is further submitted that with the coming into force of the CMV [Amendment] Rules, 2022 on and from 05.04.2022, that is, on and from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India, it has become mandatory to get a Certificate of Fitness in respect of Transport Vehicles only through a registered Automated Testing Page No.# 37/40 Station. By reference to different provisions contained in the CMV [Amendment] Rules, 2021 and the CMV [Amendment] Rules, 2022, it is, thus, submitted on behalf of the petitioners that with the coming into effect of these amended Rules, a wholly new regime for issuance of Certificate of Fitness as well as a Letter of Authority has been put in place and the applications submitted by the respondent ASTC on 27.12.2018 are to be considered in the light of the CMV [Amendment] Rules, 2021 and the CMV [Amendment] Rules, 2022. It is urged that with the change the statutory provisions, the pending applications of the respondent ASTC for grant of a Letter of Authority cannot be considered as per the previous statutory provisions.
31.1. The above change in policy has taken place and the amendments in the statutory provisions, mentioned above, have been made during the pendency of the writ petition. Adjudication on the said aspects is found not necessary in the instant proceedings primarily for the reason that the challenge made in the instant writ petition is only limited to the Notification dated 17.12.2018. It is, therefore, not necessary to broaden the scope of the present lis by any adjudication on the applications dated 27.12.2018 submitted by the respondent ASTC qua the CMV [Amendment] Rules, 2021 and the CMV [Amendment] Rules, 2022 as these are events which would take place subsequent to the decision on the sustainability or otherwise of the Notification dated 17.12.2018.
32. At the cost of repetition, it is to be mentioned that the second ground of challenge of the petitioners is to that part to the Notification dated 17.12.2018 whereby it is specified that the respondent ASTC may realize service charge @ Rs. 300/- in respect of Light Motor Vehicles [LMVs] and @ Rs. 500/- in respect of Medium & Heavy Motor Vehicles [MMVs & HMVs], apart from the statutory fees prescribed by the Transport Department, Government of Assam, which should be deposited to the Government Exchequer. It is also pertinent to mention that in the earlier Notification dated 11.01.2018 also, which was the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1395/2018, it was mentioned, in the similar manner, that the respondent ASTC could realize service charge @ Rs. 300/- in respect of Light Motor Vehicles [LMVs] and @ Rs. 500/- in respect of Medium & Heavy Motor Vehicles [MMVs & HMVs], apart from the Page No.# 38/40 statutory fees prescribed by the Transport Department, Government of Assam, which should be deposited to the Government Exchequer. As regards that part of the Notification dated 11.01.2018, the Court in the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2018 had categorically observed while setting aside the Notification dated 11.01.2018 in its entirety, that prescription of fees would be a matter within the purview of Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 and it could not be a matter within the purview of Section 19 of the RTC Act, 1950. It was further observed that as to what fees were to be charged by the respondent ASTC in the event the respondent ASTC would ultimately be issued a Letter of Authority, had to be determined strictly in terms of Rule 81 of the CMV Rules, 1989.
32.1. The proviso to Rule 81 of the CMV Rules, 1989 has allowed the options to the State to levy fee lower than the amount specified in the Table and also levy additional amounts to cover the cost of automation and technology utilised for conducting the testing or providing value added services. The meaning of word in a statutory provision depends its text and context and also upon the object it seeks to achieve. Utilise is to make practical and effective use of something. The past tense and past participle of utilise is 'utilised'. The proposal submitted by the respondent ASTC before the State Government on 02.11.2018 did not contain anything which would indicate towards incurring of any cost towards automation and technology by the ASTC at that time or the ASTC contemplating to provide any value added services at the time of issue of Certificate of Fitness. In the absence of existence of circumstances, the act of the State Government permitting to realise service charges apart from the statutory fees is an act of putting the horse before the cart.
32.2. It is found that the above findings returned in respect of the realization of service charges by the respondent ASTC by the Judgment and Order dated 11.01.2018 had attained finality with no appeal being preferred by anyone including the State respondents assailing the same. Permitting realization of service charges by the respondent ASTC at the same rates in the similar manner by the subsequent Notification dated 17.12.2018 is clearly unsustainable in law.
Page No.# 39/40 32.3. It is also noticed that Rule 81 is part of Chapter III of the CMV Rules, 1989 and it has prescribed for fees to be charged for various matters including grant or renewal of Certificate of Fitness for motor vehicles, covered under the provisions of Chapter III. A Table has provided therein specifying the fees which shall be charged under the provisions of Chapter III. The proviso to Rule 81 has mentioned that the States may levy fee lower than the amount specified in the Table and may also levy additional amounts to cover the cost of automation and technology utilized for conducting the testing or for providing any value added service.
34. On the aspect of conflict of interest raised on behalf of the petitioners, by bringing reference to the entry at Serial no. 6 of Form 40, it is to be noted that the Division Bench in its Judgment dated 02.02.2021 rendered on Reference, has already expressed the view that considering the substantive provisions of Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989, the same does not operate to restrain the ASTC to make application and to be entitled to for grant or renewal of a Letter of Authority. It has been further observed that like all other queries in Form 40 for the applicant to answer, the query at Serial no. 6 is likewise a relevant consideration to be gone into and the same cannot be read as imposing restrictions. As the issue has been deliberated in detail by the Division Bench on Reference in Paragraph 23 of the Judgment dated 02.02.2021 by holding that the respondent Corporation can be the owner and certifier at the same time and the same is a matter to be considered by the Registering Authority empowered under Rule 63 of the CMV Rules, 1989 at the time of consideration of the application of the respondent Corporation submitted in Form 40, there is no necessity for this Court to dilate on the same at an anterior point of time.
35. Summing up, the ground of challenge of the petitioners herein to first part of the Notification dated 17.12.2018 to the effect that the State Government empowered under Section 19[2][m] of the RTC Act, 1950 to accord prior approval to the ASTC permitting it to venture or foray into the activity of operating an Authorised Testing Station, has dealt with and rendered definitive findings on the credentials of the ASTC to operate the activity of an Authorised Testing Station while granting such prior approval is found not Page No.# 40/40 sustainable for the reasons stated hereinabove and as such, the said challenge is answered in the negative against the petitioners, meaning thereby, there is no interference with the prior approval granted by the State Government vide Notification dated 17.12.2018 under Section 19[2][m] of the RTC Act, 1950. In so far as the ground of challenge to the second part of the Notification dated 17.12.2018 pertaining to permitting the ASTC to realize service charges at the rates mentioned therein apart from the statutory fees prescribed by the Transport Department, Government of Assam is concerned, the same is answered in the affirmative for the petitioners for the reasons assigned hereinabove. Consequently, that part of the Notification dated 17.12.2018 whereby the ASTC has been permitted to realize service charges @ Rs. 300/- in respect of Light Motor Vehicles [LMVs] and @ Rs. 500/- in respect of Medium & Heavy Motor Vehicles [MMVs & HMVs], apart from the statutory fees prescribed by the Transport Department, Government of Assam, is set aside and quashed.
36. With the findings arrived at and the interference made as above, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant