Bombay High Court Gives Centre 'Last Chance' For Reply In PIL Against Imposition Of Additional Fee For Delay In RC Renewal

The bench of Acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Santosh Chapalgaonkar on Monday gave a 'last chance' to the central government to file a reply by January 31, 2023. The court had earlier issued notice to the respondents but no reply was filed.

The petitioner, K Savakash Auto Rikshaw Sangha, is an organisation working for auto rickshaw drivers and owners.

The petition challenges a notification amending Rule 81 of the 1989 Rules. Through this notification, additional fees are imposed on all vehicles, transport and non-transport, for delay in renewal of registration certificate.

The petition states that imposition of additional fees causes hardship to the vehicle owners who due to financial constraints might not use the vehicle and later apply for renewal. In such a case, the owner has to pay more despite not using the vehicle, the petition argues.

According to the petition, this additional fees is a punitive measure. Power of levying fees for services is given in section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (MV Act). Additional fees is without authority of law as section 211 does not provide for the same, the petition states.

According to the petition, sections 39 and 56 of the MV Act treat motor vehicles whose registration has expired at par with motor vehicles which have not been registered. Contravention of section 39 and section 56 of the Act is punishable under section 192 of the Act. Non-renewal of registration is also punishable under the same section.

The petition states that in 2017, the Madras High Court in Central Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam and Ors. v. Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Ors. struck down a similar notification dated 29 December 2016. The December 2016 notification has been temporarily stayed by the Bombay High Court Madras HC's judgement, the petition states.

The impugned notification has been challenged before other high courts and various high courts have stayed the same, according to the petition.

The petition claims that the amendment is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

The petition prays that the notification and the resulting amendment be declared ultra-virus and unconstitutional to the extent of imposition of additional fees on delayed renewal of registration certificate.

The petition also seeks that the Transport Commissioner be restrained during the pendency of the PIL from recovering any additional fees from the vehicle owners.

Advocates Ruturaj Bathe and Vaibhav Kulkarni appeared for the petitioner. Government Pleader P. P. Kakade appeared for the State and Advocate D. P. Singh appeared for the Union of India.

Case Title – K Savakash Auto Rikshaw Sangha v. Union of India