[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nimar Bus Owners Association Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6673
1 WP-47352-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 47352 of 2025
NIMAR BUS OWNERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT
VAIBHAV SINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A.S.Garg, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Abhay Kumar Jain -
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Sethi, A.A.G and Shri Pradyumna Kibe, G.A - counsel for
the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present petition has been filed by the bus owners through its
President challenging the sub-Clause III of Sub Rule 1(A) of Rule 77 of the
M.P Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 as ultravires and also prayed for quashment
of the Order dated 7/11/2025 passed by the respondent No.4 and circular
dated 14/11/2025.
2. Sub-Rule 1-A of Rule 77 of the M.P Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 is
reproduced as under:-
(1-A) In order to ensure safe, secure and convenient
transport services to the passengers, the permit granting
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6673
2 WP-47352-2025
authority while granting a stage carriage permit shall
abide the following conditions, namely,--
(i) that no stage carriage permit shall be granted on
interstate route to a vehicle which has completed 10
years from the manufacture year;
ii) that no stage carriage permit shall be granted for
ordinary route within the State to a vehicle which has
completed 15 years from the year of manufacture;
(iii) that no stage carriage permit shall be granted for
any route to the vehicle which has completed 15 years
from the year of manufacture;
(iv) that for long distance route of 75 K.M. in a single
trip, the following category of vehicle with seating
capacity shown against each shall be permitted to ply,--
"
3. The aforesaid provisions provided that the permit granting authority
shall apply the condition that no permit shall be granted for any route to the
vehicle who has completed 15 years from the year of manufacture as inserted
by notification No.E-1-6/2009/VIII dated 24/11/2010.
4. It is argued that by virtue of the said amendment, the State of M.P
has fixed the life of vehicle which can be plied on the roads as Stage carriage
vehicles between various routes. This inserted Rule notified by the State
Government has been issued in purported exercise of powers under Section
65, 96 and 211 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter to be referred as the
Act). It is argued that the aforesaid Rules is ultravires and beyond the
competence of the State Government as the provisions of the Act do not
confer power to the State Government to prescribe life of vehicle.
5. Counsel for the appellant referred the provisions of Section 41 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6673
3 WP-47352-2025
the Act, the procedure is prescribed for registration to a Motor Vehicle. Sub-
Section 7 of Section 41 provides that a certificate of registration issued under
sub-Section (3), whether before or after the commencement of the Act, in
respect of a motor vehicle shall subject to provisions contained in this Act be
valid only for period of 15 years from the date of issue of such certificate as
may be prescribed by the Central Government and shall be
renewable. Section 59 of the Act confers power on the Central Government
to fix the age validity of the Motor Vehicle. Section 64 confers power on the
Central Government to make Rules. In sub Section d(a) of Section 64 of the
Act, the power to frame Rules for providing the period of validity of a
certificate for registration under sub-Section 7 of Section 41 of the Act is
with the Central Government. Thus, power to fix a life of a vehicle for the
Registration certificate is within the domain of the Central Government. He
also referred the provisions of Section 65 of the Act which deals with the
power of the State Government to make Rules which do not confer power to
the State Government to frame Rules prescribing "life" of a vehicle. On the
aforesaid premises, he argued that the notice dated 7/11/2025 and circular
dated 14/11/2025 are without jurisdiction. To bolster his submission, counsel
for the appellant relied on the judgment passed by the Chattisgarh High
Court in the case of Dr. Sandeep Jain vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in
AIR 2018 Chhatisgarh 158 .
6. Per contra, counsel for the State argued that the provision "clause
III" of sub Rule 1(A) of Rule 77 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 amended
by notification dated 28/12/2015 and further notice dated 7/11/2025 are legal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6673
4 WP-47352-2025
and valid. The Rule has been primarily challenged on the competency of the
respondent No.1 for framing of such Rule. It would be beneficial to note that
Rule 77(1A) was initially inserted vide amendment notification dated
24.11.2010, wherein an amendment vide notification dated 28.12.2015 for
figure and word 20 years has been substituted as 15 Years in clause (iii). It is
submitted that the appellant has not annexed the impugned notification
alongwith this petition and has merely relied upon the notice dated
07.11.2025 and the circular dated 14.11.2025. From the above, it is evident
that the impugned notification was promulgated in the year 2015 in the
gazette, whereas the present petition has been filed only in the year 2025.
Thus, after much acceptance of the rules tacitly by the appellant Association
and correspondingly affected persons, the present challenge to the
notification, cannot be maintained after such huge delay. On this count only
the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The notification dated
24.11.2010 inserted in sub Rule 1-A of Rule 77 wherein first provided that
the condition of 20 years of transport vehicle for stage carriage permit has
been calculated/imposed from the date of its manufacturing. This amendment
notification dated 24.11.2010 was initially put to challenge before this Court
in Shaheed Khan v. State of M.P. reported in 2013 (4) MPLJ 439 . The said
petition was filed to challenge the competency of the State Government as
well as enforcement of right of the transporters therein. In the said judgment,
the Division Bench considering the submission made in the light of Section
59 of the Act, 1988 dismissed the petition holding that the State Government
is well competent to prescribe the age in regard to Stage Carriage Permit and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6673
5 WP-47352-2025
such would not violate Section 59 of the Act. The present petition being filed
on the same ground i.e. competency of the State Government to issue the
amendment notification thereby reducing the life of transport vehicle from
20 years to 15 years from the date of manufacturing on the ground of
violation of Section 59 of the Act, deserves to be dismissed in the light of
said judgment.
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 that the impugned rules are ultra
vires the rule making powers conferred upon the State.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6673
6 WP-47352-2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6673
7 WP-47352-2025
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6673
8 WP-47352-2025
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.
9. This Court asked the counsel for the appellant that whether in the
permit granted by the State to the members of the Association there was a
condition of "life" of the vehicle ? On instruction, counsel for the appellant
fairly stated that there was such condition in the permit itself.
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6673
9 WP-47352-2025
(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.
12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
PK
