The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed challenging the provisions contained in Rule 32 and Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to the extent these Rules provide for levy of additional fee in respect of renewal of driving license for which application is made after the grace period as also levy of additional fee for renewal of certificate of registration in respect of motorcycles and certain other classes of non-transport vehicles.
In the PILs challenge is also made to charge an additional fee in case of delay in submission of “No Objection Certificate” for transfer of ownership of motorcycle and other vehicles and also to levy on delay in submitting “No Objection Certificate” for change of residence.
The impugned provision of Rule 32 of the Rules 1989 as quoted above provides for payment of additional fee @ Rs.1000/- for delay of each year or part thereof which shall be levied after one year from the date of expiry of driving license, for renewal of driving license for which application is made after one year from the date of its expiry.
Similarly, the impugned provision contained in Rule 81 of 1989 Rules provides for levy of additional fee of Rs.300/- for delay of every month or part thereof in respect of motor cycles and Rs.500 in respect of other classes of non-transport vehicles for seeking renewal of registration certificate. It also provides levy of additional fee of Rs.300/- for delay of each month or part thereof in case of delay in submission of “No Objection Certificate” for transfer of ownership of vehicle. The impugned provision also prescribes levy of an additional fee of Rs.300/- for delay of each month or part thereof in case of motor cycles and Rs.500/- each month of delay or part thereof for other vehicles if there is delay in submitting “No Objection Certificate” for change of residence.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor noted that by the Section 211 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Central and the State Government have been empowered to levy certain fee in respect of certain acts, such as processing of applications, amendment of documents, issue of certificates, licences, permits, tests, endorsements, badges, plates, countersignatures, authorization, supply of statistics or copies of documents or orders by making Rule, provided the Central or the State Government is empowered to make such Rule under the Act.
Section 64 of the parent Act empowers the Central Government to make Rules to provide for certain matters enlisted therein. Section 110 of the parent Act also empowers the Central Government to make Rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles and with respect to certain other matters enlisted therein.
The Court found from the Section 64 and 110 of the parent Act that the said provisions unambiguously empower the Central Government to make Rules on the matters mentioned in Section 211 of the parent Act. Thus, the first requirement of the Central Government being empowered to make Rules for providing for levy of fee is undoubtedly fulfilled.
“The first striking phrase in Section 211 for the purpose of resolution of issues in this case is “notwithstanding the absence of any express provision to that effect”. Thus, Section 211 clearly provides for power available to the Central Government to make Rules for the levying fee even in absence of any express provision to that effect. The occurrence of the said phrase i.e. “notwithstanding the absence of any express provision to that effect” could perhaps be regarded as not being happily worded general power to levy fee, however, the said phrase is relatable to absence of a provision for levy of fee but since what Section 211 provides for is the levy of fee, this very phrase is to be read as the provision empowering the levy of additional fee even if no other provision provides for such levy”.
On further probe of Section 211 of the parent Act, what the Court also find is that the said provision empowers the Central Government to frame Rules for levying fee not only in respect of certain acts provided for in the said provision but for “any other purpose or matter involving the rendering of any service”. Thus, even though the acts listed in the earlier part of Section 211, for which fee can be levied, do not include the processing of delayed application for renewal of driving license or renewal of registration certificate, change of residence or transfer of ownership of vehicle, yet such acts to be performed by the authorities shall, in our opinion be covered within the meaning of the phrase “and for any other purpose or matter involving the rendering of any service”. Renewal of driving license on a delayed application or renewal of registration certificate on an application or prayer submitted or made beyond the prescribed period will also have to be construed as “service” for which the impugned provisions contain provision for levy of additional fee.
Accordingly, the Court opined that if Section 211 is construed in this manner, the irresistibe conclusion is that the said Section explicitly vests power with the Central Government to make Rules providing for the levy of not only fee in respect of processing the applications, amendment of documents, issue of certificates, licences, permits etc., but also for levy of additional fee for processing the delayed application for seeking renewal of driving license or registration certificate.
The Court have observed above that the phrase “notwithstanding the absence of any express provision to that effect” makes Section 211 unhappily worded. Occurrence of such a phrase may result in the Central Government being vested with unbridled power to make Rules prescribing for levy of certain fee and the Section itself may become vulnerable as the Central Government would be vested with excessive delegation of power to make such Rules, however, since there is no challenge in these petitions to Section 211 of the parent Act, hence in absence of any such challenge, we refrain from making any observation in our judgment in this regard.
The High Court conclude that Section 211 of the parent Act, if interpreted appropriately, vests power with the Central Government to make Rules providing for levy of additional fee for processing delayed applications for certain purposes such as for seeking renewal of driving license, renewal of registration certificate of a vehicle, change of residence and transfer of ownership of vehicle. The Court also have no hesitation to hold that the levy of additional fee in this case, is in no manner a penalty, either directly or in disguise.