Bombay High Court Strikes Down State's Circular Imposing Additional Conditions For Registration Of Govt Employee Vehicles Under “BH Series”

A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla allowed a writ petition filed by Civil Judge Mahendra Bansilal Patil challenging the Commissioner of Transport's refusal to register his newly purchased motor vehicle under the 'BH series'.

“in the absence of any power conferred on the Commissioner to super impose conditions on any applicant seeking registration of the vehicles, which are not conditions under Central Rules (Supra), the Commissioner could not have issued such circular”, the court observed.

The petitioner contended that despite complying with the conditions outlined in the Central Motor Vehicles (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 2021, specifically Clause 2(cb), which requires submission of an Official Identity Card for government employees applying for BH-series registration, his vehicle registration was denied without providing written reasons. The petitioner had submitted his official identity card issued by the Government of Maharashtra.

The Commissioner of Transport relied on a Circular issued on February 21, 2024, imposing additional requirements for government employees seeking BH-series registration. These conditions included furnishing certificates and payment slips from previous service tenures in various states, which were not mandated by the Central Rules. The petitioner challenged the Circular, arguing it contravened the Central Rules and was beyond the Commissioner's authority.

The state in its reply affidavit justified the circular citing misuse of BH series registrations by individuals working in multiple states and the perceived loss of revenue. A table in the affidavit estimated substantial revenue loss over the past three years due to the BH series registrations.

The state argued that allowing such registrations would result in a loss of revenue due to lower tax rates compared to vehicles registered under the MH series. The affidavit also claimed that the impugned circular, which imposed additional conditions, was merely a set of guidelines to ensure compliance with the amended Central Rules.

The court observed that the Circular imposed conditions not specified in the Central Rules. It emphasized that once statutory rules are in place, any contrary decision would be illegal, citing Article 254 and 256 of the Constitution, which mandate implementing central laws.

The Court deemed the Circular unlawful, stating that it exceeded the Commissioner's jurisdiction. The respondents' attempt to defend the Circular on grounds of revenue loss was not supported by the Circular, the court said.

“the Supreme Court has clearly held that the validity of the order impugned has to be tested on the basis of reasoning contained in the order, and that the authorities are not supposed to supplement the same by means of extraneous material or affidavit before the Court”, the court highlighted.

Additionally, the court highlighted the principle that when a power is given to do something in a certain way, it must be done in that manner.

The court relied on a similar case in Karnataka, where the State's attempt to exclude certain categories from BH-series registration was dismissed by the high court.

The court declared the Circular illegal observing that it has “no legs to stand”, and directed the state to register the petitioner's vehicle under the BH series.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 4165 of 2024

Case Title – Mahendra Bansilal Patil v. Commissioner of Transport & Ors.