# STATE OF M.P. & ORS v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR

- **Citation:** [2020] 7 S.C.R. 734
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-08-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7074 of 2008
- **Bench:** L. Nageswara Rao, S. Ravindra Bhat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-m-p-ors-v-rakesh-sethi-anr-34702
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994:
r. 55 A - Validity of - High Court held that Rule 55-A is ultra
vires the State's power under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Held: In view of ss. 65(1) and 211 of
Motor Vehicles Act, State Government has the authority to prescribe
a fee for reserving certain numbers or distinguishing marks to be
assigned as registration numbers - Therefore, Rule 55A is not in
excess of the powers conferred upon the State by the Act or the
Central Rules - The State was competent to make the legislation
through the provisions of the Act - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
ss. 65(1) and 211 - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. The High Court, in its impugned judgement, lost
sight of the true import of Section 211 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. The existence of specific provisions empowering the State
[such as Sections 41(13), 47(7), 49(4) and 50(5)] of the Act, means
that the power of the State to claim or charge amounts, is
specifically recognized by express provisions. Further, there are
certain services and functions for which the State is empowered
to levy fees. It is precisely to cover these contingencies, i.e. where
the service is rendered or some function performed, that the State
is empowered by a residual provision (much like the Central
Government with which it shares the power concurrently) to levy
fees. Section 211 is cast in wide terms and that any rule which
the Central Government or the State Government is empowered
to make under the Act may, notwithstanding the absence of any
express provision to that effect, provide for the levy of such fees in
respect of applications, amendment of documents, issue of
certificates, licences, permits, tests, endorsements, badges, plates,
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 734
734
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
735
countersignatures, authorisation, supply of statistics or copies of
documents or orders and for any other purpose or matter involving
the rendering of any service. Clearly, therefore, the Parliament
intended that contingencies not covered by a specific power to
levy fees or 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 fee or amounts. [Para 29]
[754-D-G]
2. The assignment of numbers by the registering authority
through an official/agency or department notified by the State
Government, cannot be seen as a mere step - albeit at the fagend of the registration allotment process. In fact, though it is the
culmination of the allotment process, it is nevertheless an
important step. The state is entitled to indicate its choice or
manner of assigning by prescribing a particular set of procedures
for the assignment of numbers. Thus, for instance, the assignment
of the concerned "code" - to the individual registering authorities
followed by the assignment of numerics may follow a
predetermined pattern which may be district wise, State
Government department wise (in the case of publicly owned
vehicles), different sequences for buses and heavy vehicles and
so on. If such a predetermined choice can be made by prescribing
the mode of assignment, it is both regulatory and at the same
time indicative of State policy. Per se, the Court cannot brush
aside the element of service which may be involved - especially
if the general public or a sub-section of it, wishes to choose
particular numbers for various considerations. Such "fancy"
numbers or "auspicious" numbers may well therefore have to be
set apart having regard to the peculiar socio-cultural needs of
the people of the state. It is in such an event that the availability
of such numbers and their reservation as a choice and the power
of their assignment assumes importance. In the impugned Rule
55A in the present instance, introduced in 2001 through
amendment by the State of M.P., prescribes four different fees -
` 15000/- for the registration marks 1 to 9 in any serie

## Text

_Characters 0–37,958 of 66,941. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=37958 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
734
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
v.
RAKESH SETHI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7074 of 2008)
AUGUST 26, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994:
r. 55 A - Validity of - High Court held that Rule 55-A is ultra
vires the State's power under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Held: In view of ss. 65(1) and 211 of
Motor Vehicles Act, State Government has the authority to prescribe
a fee for reserving certain numbers or distinguishing marks to be
assigned as registration numbers - Therefore, Rule 55A is not in
excess of the powers conferred upon the State by the Act or the
Central Rules - The State was competent to make the legislation
through the provisions of the Act - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
ss. 65(1) and 211 - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. The High Court, in its impugned judgement, lost
sight of the true import of Section 211 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. The existence of specific provisions empowering the State
[such as Sections 41(13), 47(7), 49(4) and 50(5)] of the Act, means
that the power of the State to claim or charge amounts, is
specifically recognized by express provisions. Further, there are
certain services and functions for which the State is empowered
to levy fees. It is precisely to cover these contingencies, i.e. where
the service is rendered or some function performed, that the State
is empowered by a residual provision (much like the Central
Government with which it shares the power concurrently) to levy
fees. Section 211 is cast in wide terms and that any rule which
the Central Government or the State Government is empowered
to make under the Act may, notwithstanding the absence of any
express provision to that effect, provide for the levy of such fees in
respect of applications, amendment of documents, issue of
certificates, licences, permits, tests, endorsements, badges, plates,
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 734
734
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
735
countersignatures, authorisation, supply of statistics or copies of
documents or orders and for any other purpose or matter involving
the rendering of any service. Clearly, therefore, the Parliament
intended that contingencies not covered by a specific power to
levy fees or 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 fee or amounts. [Para 29]
[754-D-G]
2. The assignment of numbers by the registering authority
through an official/agency or department notified by the State
Government, cannot be seen as a mere step - albeit at the fagend of the registration allotment process. In fact, though it is the
culmination of the allotment process, it is nevertheless an
important step. The state is entitled to indicate its choice or
manner of assigning by prescribing a particular set of procedures
for the assignment of numbers. Thus, for instance, the assignment
of the concerned "code" - to the individual registering authorities
followed by the assignment of numerics may follow a
predetermined pattern which may be district wise, State
Government department wise (in the case of publicly owned
vehicles), different sequences for buses and heavy vehicles and
so on. If such a predetermined choice can be made by prescribing
the mode of assignment, it is both regulatory and at the same
time indicative of State policy. Per se, the Court cannot brush
aside the element of service which may be involved - especially
if the general public or a sub-section of it, wishes to choose
particular numbers for various considerations. Such "fancy"
numbers or "auspicious" numbers may well therefore have to be
set apart having regard to the peculiar socio-cultural needs of
the people of the state. It is in such an event that the availability
of such numbers and their reservation as a choice and the power
of their assignment assumes importance. In the impugned Rule
55A in the present instance, introduced in 2001 through
amendment by the State of M.P., prescribes four different fees -
` 15000/- for the registration marks 1 to 9 in any series prevalent
within the jurisdiction of the registering authority; and
` 12000/- for reservation of marks from 10 to 100 in any series
within the jurisdiction of the registering authority. For reservation
of large series of numbers indicated in Rule 55A(c), ` 10000/-
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
736
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
and ` 2000/- for reservation of any other number or numbers within
1000 from the last number assigned in the serial order. In addition
to charging such fees, the registering authority is enjoined by
Rule 55A(2) to follow the principle of first-come-first-serve in
reserving particular numbers; and to allot the registration mark
reserved upon production of the vehicle along with the application
in Form-20 (of the Central Rules), provided the vehicle is
compliant with the provisions of the Act and Rules. By Rule 55A(d),
the reservation of the mark would be cancelled if the vehicle is
not produced for allotment within three months from the date of
allotment. Obviously, this is meant to avoid abuse of the
reservation process by trafficking in numbers, by providing finite
time within which such numbers can be used. [Paras 30, 31][754H; 755-A-D; 756-A; 757-A-D]
3. The generality of the power under Section 65(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act to frame rules is sufficient along with Section
211, to conclude that the State Government has the authority to
prescribe a fee for reserving certain numbers or distinguishing
marks to be assigned as registration numbers. It has not been
shown how the setting apart of or reservation of some numbers -
here, a fraction of the large potential batch of numbers which the
registering authority can otherwise assign to vehicles, is per se
arbitrary or unreasonable. Neither were any such arguments urged
before this Court. [Para 33][758-D-F]
4. Whenever a State confers rule making power or
empowers delegated legislation, i.e. where or wherever the statute
first lays out a general provision authorizing subordinate
legislation or the framing of separate legislation to carry out the
purposes of that Act, and uses the expression "in particular and
without generality of the foregoing powers", followed by another
delegation which enumerates specific powers preceded by
expressions such as "in particular and without the generality of
the foregoing powers," the particularization is only illustrative and
does not subsume the general power. [Para 34][758-F-H]
5. Therefore, the assignment of "distinctive marks" i.e.
registration numbers to motor vehicles (which includes the power
to reserve and allocate them, for a specific fee) is a distinct service
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
737
for which states or their authorities (such as the registering
authorities, in this case) are entitled to charge a prescribed fee.
Rule 55A of the MP Rules is not therefore, in excess of the powers
conferred upon the state, by the Act or the Central Rules. [Para
39][761-E-F]
6. It is not correct to say that the State was not competent
to make the legislation. The State of M.P. derived its powers to
frame the concerned rules, through the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act itself. The question, therefore, of repugnance as
properly understood, did not arise; rather it was a case whether
the state government, as one of the delegated authorities, was
empowered through Parliamentary law to frame the rule that it
did. [Para 40][761-G-H; 762-A]
Offshore Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. Bangalore Development
Authority (2011) 3 SCC 139 : [2011] 1 SCR 453;
Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh v. State of M.P (1981)
4 SCC 471; Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union
of India (2011) 8 SCC 274 : [2011] 8 SCR 680; D.K.
Trivedi & Sons v. State of Gujarat (1986) Suppl. SCC
20 : [1986] 1 SCR 479; Afzal Ullah v. State of U.P.
[1964] 4 SCR 991 - relied on.
Distt. Council of United Khasi and Jaintia Hills v.
Sitimon Sawian (1971) 3 SCC 708 : [1972] 1 SCR 398;
Indian Medical Assn. v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC
179 : [2011] 6 SCR 599; Jantia Hill Truck Owners Assn.
v. Shailang Area Coal Dealer & Truck Owner Assn.
(2009) 8 SCC 492 : [2009] 10 SCR 536; T. Cajee v. U.
Jormanik Siem [1961] 1 SCR 750; Surinder Singh v.
Central Government (1986) 4 SCC 667 : [1986] 3 SCR
946; Rohtak & Hissar District Electric Supply Co. Ltd.
v. State of UP AIR 1966 SC 1471 : [1966] 2 SCR 863;
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 222 : [2013]
12 SCR 999; K. Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu
(1985) 2 SCC 116 : [1985] 2 SCR 1028 - referred to.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 1 SCR 453
relied on
Para 7
(1981) 4 SCC 471
relied on
Para 9
[2011] 8 SCR 680
relied on
Para 11
[1972] 1 SCR 398
referred to
Para 19
[2011] 6 SCR 599
referred to
Para 20
[2009] 10 SCR 536
referred to
Para 20
[1964] 4 SCR 991
relied on
Para 34
[1966] 2 SCR 863
referred to
Para 34
[2013] 12 SCR 999
referred to
Para 34
[1985] 2 SCR 1028
referred to
Para 34
[1986] 1 SCR 479
relied on
Para 35
[1961] 1 SCR 750
referred to
Para 37
[1986] 3 SCR 946
referred to
Para 38
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7074
of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2008 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 2344 of 2004.
Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Arjun Garg,
Aakash Nandolia, Ankit Swarup, Neelmani Pant, Jawad Tariq,
Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Rukmini Bobde,
Nachiketa Joshi, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv. (A.C.).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. This appeal challenges a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court which quashed Rule 55A of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994
(hereafter "the State Rules") framed by the Madhya Pradesh State
(hereafter "the state") and published by it. The respondent (hereafter
"the vehicle owner") had approached the High Court, contending that
the said rule was ultra vires the state's power under the Motor Vehicles
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
739
Act, 1988 (hereafter "the Act"), and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules,
1989 (hereafter "the Central Rules"). The High Court accepted his
contentions.
2. The vehicle owner purchased the motorcycle in May, 2004 and
applied for its registration on 25-05-2004 before the concerned registering
authority, through the prescribed application in Form No. 20. By an order
(of 27-05-2004), the registering authority rejected the application, stating
that the vehicle owner's claim for allotment of registration number 'MPKL-4646' could not be accepted, as the petitioner had not paid the required
fee prescribed for allotment of that number. The motorcycle was allotted
another number (MP20-KL-5100) which the petitioner did not want. He
therefore, approached the High Court in writ proceedings, contending
that allotment of a particular number on payment of a fee (provided in
Rule 55A) was contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of Section
41 and the powers conferred on the State Government to frame rules
under Section 65 of the Act of 1988. He challenged the amendment
incorporated in the State Rules of 1994 by a notification dated 15.02.2001.
He also sought a direction to the registration authority that he should be
assigned the number 4646 for his motorcycle. Under Rule 55A, this
number was reserved by the State to be assigned by a separate
procedure. The Rules, particularly Rule 55A prescribed not only the
procedure but also a special fee for assigning such reserved numbers
(which included 4646, which the vehicle owner insisted should be allotted
to him). He contended that Rule 55A, was ultra vires the provisions of
the Act.
3. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel for the State relied upon
the scheme of the Act, and highlighted that while Section 41(2)
undoubtedly conferred the power to prescribe rules and also a fee to
allot registration numbers, yet Section 41(6) was specific in that even
while the Central Government was authorized to allot certain numbers
to the State, the further or onward registration or assignment of those
numbers as registration numbers was left to the State.
4. Learned counsel argued that the State Rules were framed by
virtue of the powers conferred under section 65 of the Act, which
empowers the State to inter alia, make rules with regard to issue or
renewal of certificate of registration, as well as amounts to be charged
for such registration. It was also argued that under Section 211 of the
Act, the State is entitled to levy a fee with respect to applications submitted
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
for issuing certificates, licenses or registrations and as the State fixed
the procedure for allotment of registration mark by reservation exercising
powers under Section 211, such procedure is in accordance with the
law. It was argued by Mr. Mishra, that by virtue of Section 41 (6), the
registering authority can assign to any vehicle for display on it, a
distinguishing mark known as the registration mark. It is submitted that
in this instance, since Rule 55A merely empowers the registering authority
to assign a specific registration mark, on demand to the concerned person,
the power exercised is relatable to Section 41(6), and the High Court's
conclusions are erroneous.
5. It was pointed out by Mr. Mishra that the responsibility of
assigning registration mark to motor vehicles is that of the State
Government. He emphasized that Section 64 (d) of the Act empowers
the Central Government to "prescribe the manner and the form in
which the registration mark of the vehicles is to be displayed". The
Central Government has in fact, specified the form and the manner of
display of registration marks on motor vehicles, under Rules 50 and 51
of the Central Rules. The issue raised by the petitioner relates to allocation
of a particular registration series, which is within the exclusive domain
of the concerned registering authority of the State. The Central
Government is not concerned with the allocation of distinguished
registration marks.
6. Learned counsel argued that the powers of the central
government and the states were clearly delineated; no doubt, the Central
Government had exclusive domain over the allocation of particular
numbers or series of numbers to the states, and could prescribe the fee
to be paid when applications are made for registration. However, under
Section 41(6), once a series of numbers (or alpha numeric series) is
allotted to a state, the procedure to be followed and the fee to be
prescribed for assigning the concerned numbers as registration of
individual vehicles is that of the state. The registering authority is none
other than a state designated official or agency.
7. Reliance was placed on Offshore Holdings (P.) Ltd. v.
Bangalore Development Authority1 by Mr. Mishra, who drew the
attention of this court to observations that when two laws, one by the
Centre and the other by the state, are alleged to be in conflict (or repugnant
to each other) the court should not readily infer repugnancy, but should:
1 (2011) 3 SCC 139.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
741
"ignore an encroachment which is merely incidental in order
to reconcile the provisions and harmoniously implement them.
If ultimately, the provisions of both the Acts can coexist without
conflict, then it is not expected of the courts to invalidate the
law in question."
8. This court had also observed that the doctrine of supremacy of
federal laws under Article 254 should:
"normally be resorted to only when the conflict is so patent
and irreconcilable that coexistence of the two laws is not
feasible. Such conflict must be an actual one and not a mere
seeming conflict between the entries in the two lists. While
entries have to be construed liberally, their irreconcilability
and impossibility of coexistence should be patent."
9. Mr. Mishra also relied on other decisions of this court, highlighting
that conflict of laws or repugnancy between state and central laws should
not be readily inferred, under the Constitution, but rather, the courts should
first attempt at harmonizing the two sets of apparently conflicting norms.2
Counsel also relied on Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh v. State of
M.P3 and urged that the course adopted by the state to assign specific
registration numbers through a separate procedure, was in fact a result
of popular demand, since many people wanted such specific registration
numbers for numerological, astrological and religious reasons. He
submitted that the state could have even resorted to its executive powers
without framing a rule, since the task of assigning numbers fell within its
domain, under the scheme of the Act.
10. It was argued that a reading of Section 211 along with Section
65(2)(d) and (k) clearly indicates that the State Government can make
rules with regard to the subjects on which it is specifically empowered
to do so. As far as the registration of motor vehicles and prescribing
fees for registration are concerned, the power is of the State Government
to prescribe rules for providing the procedure for assigning or renewing
registration numbers, through the registering authority. Stressing that
Section 211 was erroneously interpreted by the High Court, learned
2 Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 2 SCC 670]; Union of India v.
Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers' College [(2002) 8 SCC 228] and Girnar Traders
v State of Maharasthra [(2011) 3 SCC 1].
3 (1981) 4 SCC 471.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
742
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
counsel submitted that it clearly empowered the state to prescribe a fee
not otherwise provided, in respect of a service provided by it. Counsel
argued that the state provided a separate service, i.e. allocating specific
desired numbers to vehicle owners, for which it could well claim a fee,
over and above the registration fee prescribed by the Central Government,
under Section 41(2).
11. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the generality of the
provisions of Section 65(1) and the deployment of the expression "without
prejudice to the generality of provisions of sub-section (1)" in Section
65 (2), together with Section 65(2)(p) were meant to clothe the state
government with the power to impose a fee for the kind of services
involved in the present dispute. He relied on the judgment in Academy
of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India4 where this court had
interpreted a pari materia expression ("in particular and without the
generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or
any of the following matters"5). This court had observed, in that
judgment, as follows:
"Statutes delegating the power to make rules follow a standard
pattern. The relevant section would first contain a provision
granting the power to make rules to the delegate in general
terms, by using the words `to carry out the provisions of this
Act' or `to carry out the purposes of this Act'. This is usually
followed by another sub-section enumerating the matters/areas
in regard to which specific power is delegated by using the
words `in particular and without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any
of the following matters." Interpreting such provisions, this
Court in a number of decisions has held that where power is
conferred to make subordinate legislation in general terms,
the subsequent particularization of the matters/topics has to
be construed as merely illustrative and not limiting the scope
of the general power. Consequently, even if the specific
enumerated topics in section 23 (1A) may not empower the
Central Government to make the impugned rule (Rule 44-I),
making of the Rule can be justified with reference to the
general power conferred on the central government under
4 (2011) 8 SCC 274.
5 Section 2 (1), The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
743
section 23 (1), provided the rule does not travel beyond the
scope of the Act."
12. Service of notice of the present proceedings was complete,
upon the respondent vehicle owner. He has however chosen to remain
absent. Having regard to the public importance of issues involved in the
present case, Mr. Manoj Swaroop, learned senior counsel, was asked to
assist this court as amicus curiae which he did, with much industry and
ardor. The amicus urged this court not to disturb or interfere with the
judgment under appeal. He outlined the scheme of the Act, and underlined
Sections 41(1), (2), (3), (6) and (the now deleted6 s. 41(13)), and contended
that there was a clear demarcation of powers of the state and central
governments. Highlighting the delineation of rule making powers under
Section 64 (by the central government) and under Section 65 (by the
state government) it was submitted that the subject of prescription of
fee for allotment of registration was exhausted; the central government
had exclusive authority to prescribe the particulars required, the form to
be used for applying7 and the form of registration certificates for various
kinds of vehicles8. Thus, the state had no power to prescribe fees, much
less prescribe by-rules for a procedure for assigning specific numbers to
various applicants. It was argued that even the power of allocation of a
sequence of numbers to individual states was reserved to the central
government alone. These ruled out prescription of any further fee, or
creation of a separate procedure for assigning specific numbers, and
charging higher amounts from desirous applicants/ vehicle owners.
13. Mr. Swaroop argued that Section 211 states that if by any
rule, the Central or the State Government is empowered to make under
the Motor Vehicles Act, then the Central Government or the State
Governments, notwithstanding the absence of any express provision,
are empowered to provide for levy of such fees in respect of various
items like applications, applications for amendment to the issue of
certificates and other matters provided therein. It was argued that to
levy a fee under Section 211, a provision should exist empowering the
Central Government or the State Government to make such a rule. Such
power cannot be exercised in regard to matters for which the Act does
not give power to the State Government to make Rules. Since the power
to prescribe a fee for registration of a motor vehicle is vested in the
6 By virtue of amendment through Act 32 of 2019, by Parliament.
7 Form 20, attached to the Central Rules.
8 Form 23 and 23A, attached to the Central Rules.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
Central Government under Section 41(2), the power to levy a fee under
section 211 can be exercised by the State Government only if it is
empowered under the Act to prescribe fees for the purpose of registration
of a motor vehicle. The Act does not empower the State Government to
levy fees for registration of a vehicle; therefore, no fees can be prescribed
for allotment of a registration mark for a motor vehicle, exercising powers
under Section 211. It was submitted that the so called right of assigning
the registration number is only the last step in the process of allotment,
for which the Central Government levies a fee under Section 41(2).
14. Mr. Swaroop argued that the state is conferred with power
only to make rules providing the procedure for issue or renewal of
certificate or recovery of amount or amounts under sub-section (13) of
Section 14 i.e., to prescribe the amount to be paid for delay on the part
of the owner to file an application for registration of motor vehicle under
sub-section (1) of Section 41 or under sub-section (8) of Section 41 for
renewal of motor vehicles registration. These provisions do not empower
the state to make a rule fixing the fee to be charged for registration of a
motor vehicle. It is, therefore, clear that under the Act, the power to
prescribe a fee for registration of motor vehicles is only conferred on
the Central Government, and in exercise of the such power, the Central
Government has already fixed the fee under Rule 81 of the Central
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
15. Next, reliance was also placed on Sections 47(7), 49(4) and
50(5) of the Act. The amicus contended that these provisions specifically
conferred powers upon the state to prescribe amounts as fee for transfer
of registration of vehicles on their removal from one state to another; for
obtaining no objection certificate from the registering authority, and upon
transfer of ownership. He therefore, urged that the splitting up of an
indivisible process, by drawing a distinction between "allotment" of
numbers by the Centre and their onward assignment by the state
registering authority and the charging of a separate fee for the latter,
was impermissible. The absence of specific provisions enabling the state
to prescribe amounts as fees, for particular enumerated services, showed
Parliamentary intent to exclude the state from levying a fee for "assigning"
a registered number, for an act for which the Central government had
prescribed a fee under Section 41(2). Counsel also urged that the
provision of Section 41(2) had the effect of excluding the power of
prescribing any fee in relation to registration of vehicles, including the
state's powers under Section 65 and 211.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
745
16. Mr. Swaroop sought to contrast the provisions of the now
repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, with the Act. He contended that
Section 41(2) manifested Parliamentary intent to exclude state power in
respect of a subject matter, where such power had previously existed.
He highlighted that under the old law, individual states were free to
prescribe fees according to varying standards. The Act however, was
an improvement, because a single power of one fee, could be prescribed
under Section 41(2).
17. The amicus lastly relied on a notification issued by the Central
Government9 which had assigned specified groups of letters "for use
as registration mark for each State and Union Territory to be
followed by the code number of the Registering Authority to be
allotted by the State Government or, as the case may be the
Administrator, not exceeding four figures, to be used as registration
mark." It was urged that the notification, after setting out in tabular
form, the letters assigned to various states and union territories, further
directed that whenever the four figures referred to earlier "reached
9999, the next series shall begin with the alphabet 'A' followed by
not more than four figures and thereafter with alphabet 'B' followed
by not more than four figures and so on..."
18. Counsel asserted that this exercise exhaustively resulted in
allotment of letters and numbers to the concerned states, which then
merely had to follow a procedure of assigning them, on the basis of a
pre-determined sequence. Under no circumstances could the state or
the registering authority pick out a few or some numbers for special
assignment, and charge a separate, higher fee.
19. Learned counsel relied on Distt. Council of United Khasi
and Jaintia Hills v. Sitimon Sawian10 where, this court construed the
term "allot" and held that
"The word "allot" according to standard dictionaries means,
distribute by lot, or in such a way that the recipients have no
choice; to assign as a lot or apportion to; and the word
"allotment" means, apportioning; the action of allotting; share
allotted to one; small portion of land let out for cultivation."
9 S.O. 444(E) dated 12 June, 1989.
10 (1971) 3 SCC 708 at p. 712.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
20. It was submitted that allotment of a registration, and prescribing
a fee, for that purpose, under Section 41(2) similarly enfolds within the
term, the entire process, including the kind of application, payment of
fee, the form to be used, etc. All these are within the domain of the
Central Government; the state cannot segregate the last limb and seek
to recover a fee for "assigning" the actual number to individuals. Learned
counsel also relied on the judgment in Indian Medical Assn. v. Union
of India11, where it was held that
"66. The word "allot", in its verb form, is defined by Concise
Oxford Dictionary [ 8th Edn., Oxford University Press (1990)]
to include the meaning of the act to give or apportion to,
distribute officially to. Allotment is what results from such an
act i.e. an apportionment. The word "reserve" is defined to
also include the meaning of "order to be specifically retained
or allocated for a particular person", and the word
"reservation" is the act or an instance of reserving or being
reserved. The word "allocate" is defined to include the
meanings of an act to assign or devote something for a purpose
or to a person."
Mr. Swaroop lastly relied on the decision of this court in Jantia
Hill Truck Owners Assn. v. Shailang Area Coal Dealer & Truck
Owner Assn.12
21. The learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Vikramjit
Banerjee, appearing for the Union, supported the state's position. He
urged that under Section 39 of the Act, every motor vehicle plying on
roads should be registered. Section 40 of the Act, prescribes that such
registration is made by the concerned registering authority of the State
Government under whose jurisdiction the owner of the vehicle resides
or has a place of business. It is the duty of the concerned registering
authority of the State Government to assign a registration mark to the
vehicle as per Section 41(6) of the Act. Every application for registration
of motor vehicles should be accompanied with the fees as specified by
the Central Government. The Central Government has already specified
fees for registration of vehicles under Rule 81 of the Central Rules.
22. The ASG urged that Section 64(d) of the Act empowers the
Central Government to prescribe the manner and the form in which the
11 (2011) 7 SCC 179 at p. 217.
12 (2009) 8 SCC 492 at p. 500.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
747
registration mark of the vehicles is to be displayed. Accordingly, the
Central Government has specified the form and the manner of display
of registration marks on the motor vehicles under Rules 50 and 51 of the
Central Rules. The issue in this case, i.e. relating to the allocation of a
particular registration number concerns the registering authority of the
State Government, and not the Union. It was argued that under Section
65 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Governments are vested
with the power to frame rules on issues pertaining to registration of
motor vehicles, which are not covered under Section 64 of the Act.
Under 65(2)(b) of the Act, the appointment, functions and jurisdiction of
registering and other prescribed authorities fall under the purview of the
State Government. Moreover, under Section 65(2)(b) of the Act, the
States are vested with power to make rules on any other matter relating
to registration of motor vehicles, which need to be specified. Allocation
of a registration mark is the responsibility of the concerned State
Government. The States are competent to make rules for this purpose.
Provisions of the Act
23. The relevant provisions of the Act are reproduced below:
"39. Necessity for registration.-No person shall drive any
motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause
or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in
any other place unless the vehicle is registered in
accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of
registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or
cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark
displayed in the prescribed manner:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor
vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions
as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
40. Registration, where to be made. - Subject to the
provisions of section 42, section 43 and section 60, every
owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be
registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction
he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle
is normally kept.
41. Registration, how to be made. - (1) An application by
or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such
documents, particulars and information and shall be made
within such period as may be prescribed by the Central
Government: Provided that where a motor vehicle is jointly
owned by more persons than one, the application shall be
made by one of them on behalf of all the owners and such
applicant shall be deemed to be the owner of the motor
vehicle for the purposes of this Act.
(2) An application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be
accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by the
Central Government.
(3) The registering authority shall issue to the owner of a
motor vehicle registered by it a certificate of registration
in such form and containing such particulars and
information and in such manner as may be prescribed by
the Central Government.
(4) In addition to the other particulars required to be
included in the certificate of registration, it shall also
specify the type of the motor vehicle, being a type as the
Central Government may, having regard to the design,
construction and use of the motor vehicle, by notification
in the Official Gazette, specify.
(5) The registering authority shall enter the particulars of
the certificate referred to in sub-section (3) in a register to
be maintained in such form and manner as may be
prescribed by the Central Government.
(6) The registering authority shall assign to the vehicle,
for display thereon, a distinguishing mark (in this Act
referred to as the registration mark) consisting of one of
the groups of such of those letters and followed by such
letters and figures as are allotted to the State by the Central
Government from time to time by notification in the Official
Gazette, and displayed and shown on the motor vehicle in
such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the
Central Government.
*****
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
749
64. Power of Central Government to make rules. - The
Central Government may make rules to provide for all or any
of the following matters, namely:
(a) the period within which and the form in which an
application shall be made and the documents, particulars and
information it shall accompany under sub-section (1) of
section 41;
(b) the form in which the certificate of registration shall be
made and the particulars and information it shall contain
and the manner in which it shall be issued under sub-section
(3) of section 41;
(c) the form and manner in which the particulars of the
certificate of registration shall be entered in the records of
the registering authority under sub-section (5) of section 41;
(d) the manner in which and the form in which the registration
mark, the letters and figures and other particulars referred
to in sub-section (6) of section 41 shall be displayed and
shown; 1. Ins. by Act 54 of 1994, s. 19 (w.e.f. 14-11-1994).
(e) the period within which and the form in which the
application shall be made and the particulars and information
it shall contain under sub-section (8) of section 41;
(f) the form in which the application referred to in sub-section
(14) of section 41 shall be made, the particulars and
information it shall contain and the fee to be charged;
(g) the form in which the period within which the application
referred to in sub-section (1) of section 47 shall be made and
the particulars it shall contain;
(h) the form in which and the manner in which the application
for "No Objection Certificate" shall be made under subsection (1) of section 48 and the form of receipt to be issued
under sub-section (2) of section 48;
(i) the matters that are to be complied with by an applicant
before no objection certificate may be issued under section
48;
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
750
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
(j) the form in which the intimation of change of address shall
be made under sub-section (1) of section 49 and the
documents to be submitted along with the application;
(k) the form in which and the manner in which the intimation
of transfer of ownership shall be made under sub-section (1)
of section 50 or under sub-section (2) of section 50 and the
document to be submitted along with the application;
(l) the form in which the application under sub-section (2) or
sub-section (3) of section 51 shall be made;
(m) the form in which the certificate of fitness shall be issued
under sub-section (1) of section 56 and the particulars and
information it shall contain;
(n) the period for which the certificate of fitness granted or
renewed under section 56 shall be effective;
(o) the fees to be charged for the issue or renewal or alteration
of certificates of registration, for making an entry regarding
transfer of ownership on a certificate of registration, for
making or cancelling an endorsement in respect of agreement
of hire-purchase or lease or hypothecation on a certificate
of registration, for certificates of fitness for registration marks,
and for the examination or inspection of motor vehicles, and
the refund of such fees.
(p) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed by
the Central Government.
65. Power of State Government to make rules.