[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mohd Amir vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026

Author: Vishal Mishra

Bench: Vishal Mishra

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451
1

W.P.No.49260 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

WRIT PETITION No. 49260 of 2025
VIKAS BHARGAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Ashish Rawat - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 47103 of 2025
M/S R.J. FOUZDAR BUS SERVICE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Ashish Rawat - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 47452 of 2025
SMT. RUKMANI RAI

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 07-04-2026
10:48:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451
2

W.P.No.49260 of 2025
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Ashish Rawat - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 47788 of 2025
MAMTA RAGHUWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Ashish Rawat - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 47792 of 2025
SMT. SUNITA JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Ashish Rawat - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 47872 of 2025

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 07-04-2026
10:48:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451
3

W.P.No.49260 of 2025
PRAHLAD BHAKT YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Ashish Rawat - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 47877 of 2025
DAMOH JILA BUS OPERATORS UNION DAMOH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Ashish Rawat - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 48870 of 2025
SMT. HEMVATI CHOURASIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Subodh Kumar Pandey - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 07-04-2026
10:48:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451
4

W.P.No.49260 of 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 50244 of 2025
SHEIKH NAVED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Manav Tanwani - Advocate for petitioner through V.C. with Shri Ashi
Soni - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 50245 of 2025
MOHD AMIR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Manav Tanwani - Advocate for petitioner through V.C. with Shri Ashi
Soni - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 27.02.2026
Pronounced on : 06.04.2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER

As the question involved in all these writ petitions is identical, they

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451

are taken up for consideration in analogous hearing and are being decided by

this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts stated in Writ

Petition No.49260 of 2025 are taken into consideration.

2. Challenge is made to an order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the

respondent No.1 whereby, the respondent No.1 has directed all the transport

authorities to take action against the vehicles which are plying on the

strength of permits which are more than 15 years old from the date of

manufacturing.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a bus operator holding valid

regular stage carriage permits granted by the transport authority and plying

his vehicles on the routes. All the vehicles of the petitioner are of 2009 and

2010 model holding valid regular permits renewed from time to time, having

valid fitness certificates, and petitioner is depositing advance motor vehicle

tax for plying the vehicles on the routes. On 24.11.2010, the State

Government has issued notification by amending the Rule 77(Ia) and (III) of

the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and the age of the vehicles has been

fixed observing that no permits will be granted on the vehicles which have

completed 15 years of age from date of manufacture. It is his case that the

petitioner is holding old permits on their vehicles prior to issuance of

notification which is not applicable in the case of the petitioner and the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451

permits are still valid. Another notification has been issued on 28.11.2015 by

amending the earlier notification and inserted (Ib) and the restriction

imposed by sub-rule (Ia) that "in so far as it relates to the Stage Carriage

registered before coming into force of the said Rules shall not apply". The

aforesaid notification was not properly considered and interpreted by the

authorities and they have issued instructions to stop plying of vehicles

pursuant to the notification. It is his case that fixing of age is not within the

domain of the State authorities. It is the Central Legislation which is

required to fix the age of the vehicles. The State Government vide

notification deleted/omitted the earlier provisions and inserted new

provisions in the M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, which is beyond its jurisdiction.

Now by of impugned order dated 14.11.2025, they have directed all the

transport authorities for taking legal proceedings against the vehicles, which

have completed more than 15 years from the date of manufacture. Therefore,

this petition is filed.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the notifications dated 24.11.2010,

28.12.2015 and 27.12.2022 are not applicable in the case of the petitioner as

petitioner's vehicles were registered prior to notification dated 24.11.2010 by

which amendment has been made in Rule 77 of M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules,

1994. Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451

certificate of fitness of transport vehicles and as per this provision, the

vehicles are fit to ply on the routes till validity of fitness certificates. In

terms of Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, only the Central

Government can fix the age limit of the vehicles and not the State

Government. Rule 52(4) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 provides

that in case of transport vehicles, the validity of certificate of registration

shall be co-terminus with the validity of certificate of fitness. Without

properly appreciating the same, the impugned order has been passed by the

authorities. Therefore, this petition is filed.

5. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the authorities in one

of the writ petition being W.P.No.47103 of 2025 and submits that as all the

writ petitions are identical in nature, therefore, they are adopting the reply

filed in the case of M/s R.J. Fouzdar Bus Service and Another vs. State of

M.P. and others (W.P.No.47103 of 2025). They have denied averments of

the writ petition and supported the impugned notification. It is contended

that the petitioner is challenging the communication dated 14.11.2025

wherein the State Government have written a letter to the Transport

Commissioner mentioning that the vehicles those who have completed 15

years may not be operated. It is observed in the communication that

although the vehicles have completed 15 years but in few cases as the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451

permits are valid, the vehicles are plying. The same may be dangerous to life

of the public. Thus, appropriate action was directed to be taken. The same is

put to challenge on the strength of certain orders passed in W.P.No.7703 of

2018 and other matters.

6. It is contended that statutory amendment dated 27.12.2022 whereby the

sub-rule 1(b) of Rule 77 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994

was amended, was put to challenge before this Court by filing various writ

petitions. The matter travelled up to the Division Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.47352 of 2025 (Nimar Bus Owners Association through its

President vs. The State of M.P. and others) vide order dated 12.03.2026, the

writ petition was dismissed upholding the validity of the notification issued

by the authorities. In pursuance to the said notification, the consequential

order has been passed by the authorities directing for stopping of plying of

vehicles which are more than 15 years of age. Therefore, once the validity of

the notification is upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, the

consequential orders are required to follow. All the arguments raised before

this Court were considered by the Division Bench of this Court and,

therefore, nothing further survives for consideration in the present writ

petition. The order passed in the case of Nimar Bus Owner Association

(supra) dated 12.03.2026 is fully applicable to the case of the petitioner also.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451

Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. The question which has been raised in all the writ petitions with respect

to applicability of the notification issued by the State Government and

subsequent passing of the orders by the authorities directing for taking

action for stopping of plying of vehicles which are more than 15 years old

from the date of manufacture, is considered by the Division Bench of this

Court in the case Nimar Bus Owner Association (supra) and it is held as

under:-

"7. The validity of the aforesaid provision has already been examined by the Division Bench in the case of Shaheed Khan (supra) in which the provisions of the Act regarding the registration and grant of permit for Stage Carriage has been considered and it has been held that the power conferred by the Central Government under Section 59 of the Act is distinct than the power for grant of Stage Carriage permits which is granted in terms of the Section 72 and 96 of the Act. Therefore, the grant of Stage Carriage permit falls within the jurisdiction of the State Government in terms of the Section 72 & 96 of the Act. The relevant paras of the judgment passed in the case of Shaheed Khan (supra) reads as under:-

37. We, therefore, have no doubt in our minds that general rule making power relating to all aspects connected with the control of transport vehicle has been conferred upon the State Government under Section 96 of the Act including the power to specify and prescribe the conditions subject to which stage carriage permits and contract carriage permits can be granted and that such conditions may relate to matters regarding long routes, seating capacity, safety security and comfort of passengers as well as conditions of the roads and traffic conditions which are all matters that are intricately related to transport vehicles and, therefore, it cannot, by any stretch of interpretation of the provisions, be held

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451

that the impugned rules are ultra vires the rule making powers conferred upon the State.

52. We now proceed to decide the issue as to whether prescription to the age of the vehicle for the purposes of grant of stage carriage permit by the impugned rules is directly in contravention of the provisions of section 59 of the Act which confers this power exclusively on the Central Government. The fallacy in the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners becomes apparent when we read the provisions of Section 59 and 96 in their proper perspective. Section 59 is part of Chapter IV of the Act which deals with the field of registration of the motor vehicle and provides that the Central Government having regard to public safety, convenience and objections of this Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the "life" of a motor vehicle reckoned from the date of its manufacutre, after the expirty of which the mnotor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirement of this Act and the rules made thereunder. The object and reasons for inserting section 59 of the Act as stated are to empower the Central Government to specify the "life" of a motor vehicle of any class or type beyond which the vehicle will have to be "kept off the roads"

that is to say that it cannot thereafter be permitted to ply on the roads.

53. On the other hand, section 96 of the Act which is part of Chapter V of the Act deals with the field of control of transport vehicles and gives power to the State Government to frame rules for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter V which includes the power to prescribe conditions by framing rules subject to which stage carriage permits may be granted which is also clear from a perusal of section 72(2) and 72(2)(xxiv) and it is in the exercise of this power under Section 96 that the impugned rules have been framed which do not in any manner relate to registration of vehicles nor do they provide that the vehicle shall be taken off the road for all times to come as its road "life" shall come to an end. The rule only prescribes the age of the vehicle beyond which it cannot be permitted to be used as a stage carriage by providing that no stage carriage permit can be granted to a vehicle after it has attained a particular age looking to the safety and convenience of the travelling passengers. It is, therefore, clear that while Section 59 confers power on the Central Government to prescribe the "life" of a motor vehicle beyond which the vehicle would have to be kept off the roads, as its registration under

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451

Chapter IV shall come to an end or lapse. Section 96 is limited to prescribing conditions for grant of stage carriage permits under which it has the power to prescribe a condition regarding the "age" of the vehicle beyond which it cannot be used as a stage carriage permit with a view to ensure the safety and convenience of the passengers. It goes without saying that even though no stage carriage permit may be granted to a vehicle after a particular age, in view of the impugned rules such a vehicle may and can still be continued to be used by the petitioners for all other purposes subject to any notification issued under Section 59. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned rules are within the powers conferred upon the State by the Act and do not overlap or intrude into the powers conferred upon the Central Government by section 59 of the Act. We may with profit note that the High Court of Bombay in the case of Shiv Adhar Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., AIR 2009 NOC 2159 (Bom.) and Chhatisgarh High Court in the case of M/s Balaji Travels Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and another, 2008(11) MPJR-CG 78 have also taken a similar view.

57. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned condition regarding age prescribed by the State Government by framing the impugned rules is not beyond the rule making power conferred upon the State and is also not in contravention of the provisions of Section 59 of the Act and that the State has the power to prescribe such a condition for the purpose of granting stage carriage permits and that such a condition is for the safety of the travelling passengers and the public at large, and in public interest as has been held by the Supreme Court and, therefore, the contention to the contrary of the petitioners deserves to be and is hereby rejected."

8. In the case of Shaheed Khan (supra) this Court has made a distinction in clear terms that the provision relating to prescription of "life" in 'registration' is different from a power to prescribe the age of the vehicle as a condition for permit and provision was held to be intravires.

---

10. Once, there is a condition in the permit itself, the appellant cannot ply the vehicle without permit though it may have a valid registration in respect of a Stage Carriage. Another Division Bench has considered the similar challenge and decided the same vide its

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451

judgment dated 5/2/2018 passed in the case of Tripathi Travels vs. State of M.P & Ors. (W.P No.2023/2018) after referring the judgment passed in the case of Shaheed Khan (supra), held that it is within the competence of the State Government and its authorities for incorporating a condition fixing the age of Stage Carriage Vehicle in a permit and the same is also within the purview of Section 72 and Section 96 of the Act, even if the Central Government has not fixed the age of the Motor Vehicle in the Registration certificate. Thus, prescription of life of a vehicle in Registration certificate is different from incorporation of a condition fixing the age of stage carriage vehicle in permit.

11. The counsel referred the judgment of the Chattisgarh High Court. However, two Division Benches of this Court have already considered the validity of the Rule in the case of Shaheed Khan (supra) and Tripathi Travels (supra) which are binding on us as per law of precedent. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the clause III of sub Rule 1(A) of Rule 77 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 is held intra vires and the order dated 7/11/2025 passed by the respondent No.4 and circular dated 14/11/2025 are legal and valid."

9. If the aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench of this Court

in the aforesaid case is taken note of, then the validity of the amended Rule

is upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. It was also held that grant of

Stage Carriage Permit falls within the jurisdiction of the State Government

in terms of Sections 72 and 96 of the Act.

10. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shaheed Khan

vs. State of M.P. reported in 2013 (4) MPLJ 439 has observed as under:-

"37. We, therefore, have no doubt in our minds that general rule making power relating to all aspects connected with the control of transport vehicle has been conferred upon the State Government under Section 96 of the Act including the power to specify and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451

prescribe the conditions subject to which stage carriage permits and contract carriage permits can be granted and that such conditions may relate to matters regarding long routes, seating capacity, safety security and comfort of passengers as well as conditions of the roads and traffic conditions which are all matters that are intricately related to transport vehicles and, therefore, it cannot, by any stretch of interpretation of the provisions, be held that the impugned rules are ultra vires the rule making powers conferred upon the State.

82. In the instant case as we have held that the impugned rules do not violate any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the statutory provisions validity of which has not been challenged, are not ultra vires the statutory provisions of any Act, are reasonable and in furtherance of the object and purpose of the Act and are in public interest they satisfy the parameters on which subordinate legislation is to be tested and we, therefore, cannot look into the wisdom or unwisdom of the policy behind them. Consequently, we have no hesitation in declaring the impugned amendments made in the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 vide notification dated 24-11-2010 to be constitutional and valid.

83. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the facts and the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned amendments in Rules 64, 67, 77, 103, 116 and 204 and the insertion of Rule 116-A in the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 are valid and do not fall foul of the statutory provisions of the Act and are also constitutionally valid as they do not violate any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the petitions filed by the petitioners assailing the constitutional validity of the aforesaid amendments. The petitions being meritless are accordingly dismissed...."

11. If the aforesaid principle is applied to the facts and circumstances of

the present case, then it is seen that the notifications issued by the State

Government are upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. In pursuance to

the said amended Rules, the State Government are authorized to take a

decision with respect to grant of Stage Carriage Permit for plying of vehicle.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26451

It is within the jurisdiction of the State Government to consider for grant of

permits for plying the vehicles. Once, the notifications are upheld by the

Division Bench of this Court. It is only consequential order which has been

passed by the authorities, which is a subject matter of challenge in these writ

petitions. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the authorities in

passing the impugned order once the amendments/notifications are upheld