Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 58 (0.57 seconds)Section 211 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 64 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 56 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 September, 2014
In the case of Gaurav Kumar Vs. Union of India &
Others (supra), the principles with regard to limitation of rule
making power were clearly delineated, as held in Para 58 and 59
thereof, quoted hereinabove. Rule making power is only ancillary
and cannot be so exercised to bring into existence substantive
rights, obligations or disabilities not contemplated by the
provisions of the parent enactment and the rules must align with
the object and purpose of the Act. It has been highlighted that the
delegate derives its legislative powers from the parent statute.
Unlike the Legislature, which has sovereign legislative powers
derived from the Constitution, the delegated authority is conferred
powers by the parent enactment and, therefore, delegated
authority must strictly conform to the provisions of the statute
under which it is framed. A delegate, therefore, cannot alter or
change the legislative policy. A delegate cannot override the
provisions of the parent enactment either by exceeding the
legislative policy or making provisions inconsistent with the
enactment.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rakesh Sethi . on 26 August, 2020
47. True it is that Section 211 of the Act of 1988 is couched in
very wide words and is a source of residuary power in the hands
of the Central Government to levy fee in exercise of the rule
making power notwithstanding the absence of any express
provision to that effect in any other provision of the Act of 1988.
However, the controlling and qualifying clause in Section 211 of
the Act of 1988 makes it clear that such wide power can be
exercised for levy of such fees in respect of applications,
amendments of documents, issue of certificates, licences, permits,
tests, endorsements, badges, plates, countersignatures,
authorisation, supply of statistics or copies of documents or orders
and for any other purpose or matter involving rendering of any
service by the officers and authorities under the Act of 1988 or
any other rule made thereunder as may be considered necessary.
Therefore, the power, howsoever wide it can be, has to be
exercised for the purpose of levy a fee. We have already referred
to hereinabove the interpretation placed on Section 211 of the Act
of 1988 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
M.P. & Others Vs. Rakesh Sethi & Anr. (supra) wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Parliament intended that
contingencies not covered by a specific power to levy fees or
(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 01:02:18 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:50573-DB] (322 of 328) [CW-14258/2024]
amounts, which entailed some activity on the part of the State,
including rendering of any service could be legitimately charged or
subjected to the levy of fees or amounts. That means, impost has
necessarily to be in the nature of fee.
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners ... vs Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, ... on 20 January, 1999
In the case of Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners'
Association & Others Vs. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,
Hyderabad & Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that licence fees could broadly be classified as either
24 1963 Supp (2) SCR 302
25 1964 SCC OnLine SC 65
(Downloaded on 21/12/2024 at 01:02:18 AM)
[2024:RJ-JP:50573-DB] (309 of 328) [CW-14258/2024]
regulatory or compensatory. It was further observed that licence
fees are regulatory when the activities for which a licence is given
are required to be regulated or controlled. It was also held that
the fees charged for regulation of activities could be validly
classified as fees although no service is rendered.