Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. It is on such backdrop, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
14. Mr. Dande has made submissions in support of the petitioner's case that the impugned Circular is arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the Rules. It is 12 April, 2024 904 WP4165-24.DOC submitted that the case as made out in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3, is in the teeth of the said Rules, as framed by the Central Government making provisions for the BH series registration. It is contended that in any case as to what has been pleaded in the affidavit, can never be a reason to nullify the said Rules. It is his further submission that the reasons which are set out in the reply affidavit are not borne out by the Circular. Therefore, the attempt on the part of the Commissioner to justify the Circular by such affidavit is wholly against law. Mr. Dande submits that such an affidavit ought not to be accepted which is an attempt to explain the impugned Circular on materials which is not referred and provided in the Circular. It is his submission that what was expected from respondent nos.1 to 3 was to comply with the Central Rules, and that once the petitioner's application satisfied the Central Rules, it should have been considered and processed as per the Central Rules, as the same were binding on the Commissioner, for issuance of registration to the petitioner's vehicle under the BH Series. It is submitted that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of the impugned actions of respondent nos.1 to 3, as the new vehicle as purchased by the petitioner cannot be put to use for a long period which is lying at the petitioner's doorstep. He ultimately submitted that the actions of the respondents in taking a position contrary to the Central Rules is also contrary to the provisions of Article 256 of the Constitution, apart from being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

18. From a bare reading of the aforesaid Circular it appears that, by such Circular, the Commissioner of Transport has foisted requirements in clause 4.1 which in fact are not the requirements under the 2021 Central Rules, as noted by us hereinabove.

12 April, 2024 904 WP4165-24.DOC

19. We may observe that, in the absence of any power conferred on the Commissioner to super impose conditions on any applicant seeking registration of the vehicles, which are not conditions under Central Rules (Supra), the Commissioner could not have issued such circular. Once the statutory rules are in vogue, and they are applicable, there is a constitutional mandate under Article 254, read with Article 256, to implement the Central Law. Any contrary decision of the nature as taken by the Commissioner in the impugned circular would be rendered bad and illegal. If the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an independent power with the State to frame rules, and such rules if framed are inconsistent to the rules framed by the Central Government, in that event only after an assent of the President, such rules can be notified, failing which it would bring about a situation of a direct conflict in the statutory regime not recognised by law. Thus, it was not permissible to the Commissioner, to impose conditions by such circular to regulate registration of BH Vehicles, which would nullify the Central Rules or create a regime which is contrary to the Central Rules or defeat the provisions of the Central Rules. In this context, it would also be appropriate to refer to Articles 254 and 256 of the Constitution, which read thus:

25. Mr. Dande would also be justified in placing reliance on a similar situation which had arisen before the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in the case of The Principal Secretary to Government Transport Department and Ors. vs. Ranjith K.P. and Ors. 6 wherein a stand similar to the one taken by respondent nos.1 to 3 in the present case was taken by the State of Karnataka, to justify the decision not to grant a BH series registration for the ground of loss of revenue. The Division Bench considering the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, observed that the provisions of the Central Act were binding on the State Government and accordingly dismissed the Writ appeal filed by the State Government, thereby confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge, who had issued a direction to register the vehicle of the respondent under the BH Series. In rejecting such contentions as urged on behalf of the State Government, and referring to the constitutional 4 (2022) 9 SCC 23 5 (2022) SCC Online SC 1264 6 Writ Petition Nos.191 of 2023 (MV) and 196 of 2023 (MV) decided on 27 th July 2023 12 April, 2024 904 WP4165-24.DOC provisions of Article 256 of the Constitution of India, the following observations were made by the Court:

"13. Section 64 of the M.V. Act provides for power of the Central Government to make rules for the purpose of registration of vehicles as contemplated under Section 41 of the M.V.Act. While Section 65 of the M.V. Act provides for power of the State Government to make rules other than those specified under Section 64.
14. Thus, once the rules framed in furtherance to Section 65 of the M.V. Act by the Central Government are made applicable, the State Government has to implement the same in view of the constitutional mandate provided under Article 256 of the Constitution of India which reads as under: