Kerala High Court
Kerala State Used Vehicle Dealers ... vs State Of Kerala on 14 June, 2022
WP(C) No.18619/2022 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Tuesday, the 14th day of June 2022 / 24th Jyaishta, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18619 OF 2022 (B)
PETITIONER:
KERALA STATE USED VEHICLE DEALERS & BROKERS ASSOCIATION,
REG.NO.C.A.292/07, 27/509(7), VAHANABHAVAN, NURANI JUNCTION,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN - 678004
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, V.M.THOMAS @ SONY
VALIYAKATTIL,
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TRANSPORT),
SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PIN - 110001
3. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, NEW DELHI PIN - 110001
4. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
5. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
2ND FLOOR, TRANS TOWERS. VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCAUD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to stay the direction in Exhibit P2 to collect additional fee of
Rs.300/- per month for two wheelers and Rs.500/- for other class of non-
transport vehicles for delay for renewal of registration and additional
fee of Rs.50/- per day of delay in renewal of certificate of fitness after
expiry of certificate of fitness levied as per rule 81 of the Central
Motor Vehicle (23rd amendment) Rules, 2021, pending disposal of the Writ
Petition (Civil).
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
M/S.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN, K.A.ABHILASH, VINOD S. PILLAI, MOHAMMED
THAYIB N.M., NAYANA VARGHESE, AHAMMAD SACHIN K. & K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL),
Advocates for the petitioner, SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for R1, R4 & R5 and of SRI.S.MANU, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF
INDIA for R2 & R3, the court passed the following:
(p.t.o)
WP(C) No.18619/2022 2/6
AMIT RAWAL, J.
=================
W.P.(C) No.18619 of 2022
=====================
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2022
ORDER
Petitioner, who is an Association registered under
Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable
Societies Registration Act, 1955 and dealing with the sale and
purchase of old cars, through the instant writ petition have
assailed the 23rd amendment caused in Central Motor
Vehicles Rule, 2021 whereby under the Rule 81 an additional
fees over and above the prescribed fees for renewal of the
registration of the vehicle has been introduced. It is
contended that the said condition is inconsistent and contrary
to the provisions of Section 211 of the Central Act which does
not empower the Government to frame the rules for charging
additional fees. Similar amendment was caused in the
Central Motor Vehicle Rules in 2016, which was challenged in
the Madras High Court and vide judgment dated 3.4.2017,
Ext.P4 said rule was struck down. Though an S.L.P bearing
No.23648 of 2017 is pending but there is no interim stay.
Similar amendment of 2016 was also challenged in this Court
vide W.P.(C) No.4911 of 2018 and vide order dated 4 th April
WP(C) No.18619/2022 3/6
2018, as an interim measure respondents were directed to
accept the application for renewal of certificate of
registration without insisting on the payment of additional
fee. It is therefore prayed that during the pendency of the
writ petition there should be an interim order in the same
terms till the controversy of charging the additional fees is
settled in the pending S.L.P as the rules in existence, by way
of previous amendment are pari materia.
2. Issue notice before admission. Special Government
Pleader Sri.P. Santhosh Kumar takes notice for R1, R4 and
R5. Sri.S.Manu for ASGI takes notice for R2 and R3.
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that
petitioner has no locus standi to file a writ petition as they
are not affected party being the dealers. It is the person who
would submit a fees for seeking renewal of the registration,
would only have a cause of action when being confronted
with the additional fees. Moreover the State of Kerala has
already implemented Rule 81 introduced by amendment as
per the notification dated 4.10.2021 with effect from
1.4.2022 as per the contents of the letter issued by the 5 th
respondent, Ext.P2 and additional fees is being levied as and
when such applications for renewal of the certificates are
received and entertained; thus opposed the interim prayer.
WP(C) No.18619/2022 4/6
The contention of the counsel prima facie appears to be
just and equitable for the reason that even the dealers would
have a cause of action to file the petition as for making the
livelihood they purchase the car from an original owner and
retain it for some time to fetch an appropriate price by
selling it in open market. During the interregnum, with the
introduction of the amendment in the Rule 81 and the period
of registration of the vehicle such owners, expired condition
of additional fees is fastened and burdened on such dealers.
Since the matter is already pending adjudication in Supreme
Court with no interim stay and previous amendment viz-a-
viz the present amendment are pari materia introducing
charging of additional fees for renewal of the registration. By
looking at the provisions of Section 211 of the MV Act, there
is no power for imposition of additional fees as the expression
used is 'levy and fees'. The expression 'additional' whether
would fall within the definition of fees or not, in my view, is
the subject matter of the pending S.L.P. In this view of the
matter, I deem it appropriate to grant interim relief by
directing the all RTOs in the State of Kerala to accept the
application for renewal of the certificate of registration
without insisting for additional fees with an undertaking from
any applicant to pay the additional fees in case the decision
WP(C) No.18619/2022 5/6
rendered by the Supreme Court is against them. Registry is
directed to group the connected cases. Post on 26.9.2022.
sd/-
sab AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
sa/131219sassssabs10.
14-06-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WP(C) No.18619/2022 6/6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18619/2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO
Exhibit P4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERS DATED 22.03.2022
TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN WPC NO 1598/18 AND
CONNECTED CASES PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
DATED 03.04.2017
