Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. M. Karpaga Vinayagam, CJ. M/s. Nag Auto Testing Station is the petitioner herein. The petitioner is one of the testing stations, who has been authorized to grant certificate of fitness to motor vehicles under the license granted by the State under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The State issued notification dated 10.9.2003, requiring the Authorized Testing Stations to obtain counter-signature from the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the fitness certificates before issuing the same. Having aggrieved by the said compulsion of getting counter-signature from the Motor Vehicle Inspectors, the petitioner, the Authorized Testing Station, has filed this writ petition, challenging the validity of the said notification dated 10.9.2003, for quashing of the same.
2. The basic facts, which are relevant for the disposal of the writ petition, are as follows:
The writ petitioner is a private testing station. It has been granted license under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to grant certificates of fitness to motor vehicles. Only on the basis of the said fitness certificates, the owners of the motor vehicles can approach the Transport Authority for issuance of road permit. Initially, the Transport Authority insisted that the said fitness certificates to be counter-signed by the Joint Transport Commissioner before being issued. Objecting to this insistence of the Transport Authority, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition, for issuance of a mandamus in CWJC No. 4092/2000 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition and directed the petitioner to follow the executive instructions issued by the Transport Authority and also directed the Joint Commissioner to receive the papers from the Testing Stations and return the same after counter-signature without any delay. Taking advantage of the said direction, the State Government issued a notification dated 21.2.2000, authorizing the Joint Commissioners to counter-sign the fitness certificates issued by the authorized Testing Stations Accordingly, the petitioner has been following the said direction, Later, the State Government issued a fresh notification dated 10.9.2003 in modification of the earlier notification dated 21.2.2000, requiring the Authorized Testing Stations to get the counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors, instead of Joint Transport Commissioners. Though the petitioner, in pursuance of the said notification, approached the Motor Vehicle Inspectors for getting the counter-signature over the fitness certificates, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors refused to counter-sign on the ground that the forms will be counter-signed only after the fitness of the vehicles are checked by them. The petitioner, having felt the various practical difficulties in obtaining the counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the fitness certificates, has chosen to challenge the above notification dated 10.9.2003 issued by the State and filed this writ petition, for quashing the same.
3. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would make the following submissions in order to show that the notification dated 10.9.2003 issued by the State lacks jurisdiction and hence the same is liable to be quashed:
(A) under Section 56(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the certificate of fitness for the vehicles can be issued by either of the two authorities - one is the Motor Vehicle Inspectors and the other is the Authorized Testing Stations. Under Rules 62, 63 and 65 of the Central Rules, the Authorized Testing Stations are to follow the conditions, procedures and regulations which are formulated by the Central Government to control the Authorized Testing Stations. under Section 56(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State Government has specified the Authorized Testing Stations in the State to issue certificates of fitness as per the relevant rules of the Central Rules. Those Authorized Testing Stations get letter of authority in Form 39 to issue certificates of fitness. Thus, it is clear that the State Government can put only such conditions which are available in the Rules formulated by the Central Government. Now in the notification dated 10.9.2003, the State Government added a new condition in the letter of authority compelling the Authorized Testing Stations to get the counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the fitness certificates, which has not been provided in Rule 65 of the Central Rules. Therefore, this notification is not valid.
(B) Rule 67 provides only for inspection of the vehicles by the Motor Vehicle Inspectors at the premises of the Testing Stations. It does not provide for counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the certificates of fitness issued by the Authorized Testing Stations.
(C) Under the old Act, i.e. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the only authority, which was given the power to issue certificates of fitness, was the Motor Vehicle Inspector of the area. To reduce the burden of Motor Vehicle Inspectors, the Parliament framed a provision in the Rules, providing the said power to two authorities. under Section 56 (1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Authorized Testing Stations were created to issue certificates of fitness, apart from the Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The State Government, having vested the power with the Authorized Testing Stations to issue certificates of fitness under Section 56(2), cannot compel the authorized Testing Stations to get the counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors, as the Motor Vehicle Inspectors is alternative authority. If such a condition is put, it will amount to defeating the purpose of introducing the new section in the Act, 1988, by the Parliament, providing for two authorities empowering them to issue fitness certificates in order to reduce the burden of Motor Vehicle Inspectors, who were the only authority under the old Act.
4. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, Officials to Government, and Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, intervener, would make the following reply :
(i) The power of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors to inspect the vehicles and to put counter-signature in the certificates of fitness cannot be questioned in the writ petition, in view of the fact that Patna High Court has already decided the issue in the case of Bihar Chamber of Testing Stations and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1993(1) PLJR 164 (DB) as against the petitioner. A similar decision has been rendered by a Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 3081/1999R on 11.1.2000. Therefore, the writ petition is barred by res judicata.
(ii) under Section 56(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors have the power to cancel the certificates of fitness issued by the authorized Testing Stations. When such power is vested with the Motor Vehicle Inspectors, there is no bar for the State to impose a condition on the authorized Testing Stations asking them to get the counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the certificates of fitness.
(iii) Rule 67 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules provides for inspection and checking of the vehicles at the premises of the Testing Stations by the Motor Vehicle Inspectors. By virtue of this power, the State is well within its right to authorize the Motor Vehicle Inspectors to counter-sign the certificates of fitness.
5. The petitioner has challenged the notification issued by the State making the State Government officials as respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are the necessary parties.
Trekar Owners' Association, Dhanbad, has filed intervener application requesting that they also must be heard as intervener. Even though the said Association is not entitled to have any say with reference to the jurisdiction of the State to issue such a notification, this Court felt that it would be better to receive the legal assistance from them also and to treat them as respondent No. 6 to arrive at a proper conclusion. Accordingly we allowed them also to argue at length. All the counsel for the parties have filed their written submissions as well.
6. We have considered the oral submissions as well as written submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the entire records. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to all the points raised by them.
7. Let us have a look at the notification in question dated 10.9.2003, which is Hindi, is reproduced hereunder before entering into the discussions over the points raised by the respective parties:
>kj[k.M ljdkj
Ikfjogu foHkkx
Lh0,e0ih0Mh0vkbZ0] Hkou dkads jksM jkaph
vf/klwpuk
jkaph fnukad 10-9-03
Kkikad la[;k 3837@ eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk 213 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, >kj[kaM ljdkj jkT;iky ifjogu foHkkx ds vUrxZr inLFkkfir eksVkj ;ku fujh{kdks dks dsUnzh; eksVj okgu fu;ekoyh 1989 ds fu;e 67 ds vUrxZr vFkjkbZTM VsfLVax LVs'ku ds }kjk fuxZr nq:Lrh izek.k Ik= ij izfrgLrk{kj djus ds fy;s izkf/kdkjh fu;qDr djrs gSA
2- iwoZ esa fuxZr vf/k0la0yksd dk;Z@ifj0 7@2000 101 ,l0 fnukad 21-2-2000 dks vYi laa'kksf/kr djrs gq, la;qDr ifjogu vk;qDr dks dsunzh; eksVjokgu fu;ekoyh 1989 ds fu;e 67 ds v/khu iznRr izfr gLrk{kj dh 'kfDr fujLr dh tkrh gSA mDr vf/klwpuk esa la;qDr ifjogu vk;qDr dks iznRr vFkjkbZTM VsfjVax LVs'ku ds lapkyu ,oa fu;a=.k dh 'kfDr ds vUrxZr inkf/kdkjh cus jgsaxsaA
kj[kam jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls
Sd/-
Foey dhfrZ flag
Lfpo
Ifjogu foHkkx kj[kaM jkaph
The English version of the aforesaid notification is given below:
Government of Jharkhand
Department of Transport
C.M.P.D.I. Bhawan, Kanke Road, Ranchi
Circular
Memo No. 3837 Ranchi, dated 10.9.03The Governor, Government of Jharkhand, in exercise of the power vested under Section 213 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in File - 2237, appoints the Motor Vehicle Inspector as the authority to counter-sign the Fitness Certificates issued by the authorized testing stations under Rule 67 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989.
2. Partially amending the earlier issued circular No. Public Works/Transport - 7/2000/0/S dated 21.2.2000, power vested to the Joint Transport Commissioner to counter-sign under Rule 67 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, is hereby withdrawn. The Joint Transport Commissioner shall remain the Registration Officer under the power vested in him by the said notification for conducting and controlling the authorized testing stations.
By the order of Governor
Sd/- Bimal Kirti Singh
Secretary
Transport Department
Jharkhand, Ranchi
Let us now deal with the points one by one. The first point raised by the respondents relates to the principle of res judicata. According to the respondents, the issue in question has already been decided by the Patna High Court in the case of Bihar Chamber of Testing Stations and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 164 (DB) and also in CWJC No. 3081/1999R and therefore, this point cannot be raised again. On going through the above decisions it is apparent that the Division Bench of the Patna High Court had dealt with the question whether the Motor Vehicle Inspectors were empowered to check those vehicles at any time after the issuance of certificates of fitness by the authorized Testing Stations in order to decide whether those certificates are liable to be cancelled or not. That is not the issue in this writ petition. The main question in this writ petition is whether the State Government has got the jurisdiction to impose any condition in the letter of authority compelling the Authorized Testing Stations to get the counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the certificates of fitness even before it is issued when it is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 56(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
9. The learned Counsel for the respondents would refer to another decision of the Single Judge in CWJC No. 3081/1999R in support of the plea of respondents. It is true that the very same petitioner filed a writ petition in CWJC No. 3081/1999R, challenging the jurisdiction of Transport Authority insisting the Testing Station to get the counter-signature from the Joint Commissioners on the certificates of fitness before issuing the same. However, this question was ultimately not decided by the learned Single Judge as the counsel for the petitioner had confined himself with the restricted prayer, stating that he has no objection in getting the counter-signature of the Joint Commissioners and he would be satisfied with the direction from the learned Single Judge to the Joint Commissioners to counter-sign the fitness certificates without any delay, whenever the Authorized Testing Stations approach them. Accordingly, it was directed by the order dated 11.1.2000. Therefore, the issue in question with reference to the jurisdiction of the State and validity of the notifications issued by the State government dated 21.11.2000 and 10.9.2003 had never been raised either before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court or before the Single Judge of this Court, as these orders have been passed even prior to issuance of the above notification.
10. As indicated earlier, the only question before the Patna High Court was with reference to the power of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors to check the vehicles after issuance of certificates of fitness in order to decide whether the certificates of fitness issued by the authorized testing stations is to be cancelled or not. That is not the question here. The questions raised in this case are these:
(1) Whether it is mandatory for the authorized testing stations to get counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors even before the issuance of certificates of fitness or not?
(2) Whether the State Government by issuing such a notification putting the above condition could indirectly take away the exclusive power of the authorized testing stations given by the Parliament to issue certificates of fitness?
As such, the issues referred to above are entirely different. Hence, the submissions relating to the plea of res judicata made by the learned Counsel for the respondents being not valid are liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
11. The second point relates to the exclusive power of the authorized testing stations to issue certificates of fitness. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, under Section 56(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the certificate of fitness for the vehicle can be issued either by the Motor Vehicle Inspectors or by the Authorized Testing Stations. under Section 56(2) of the Act, the State Government has specified the authorized testing stations in the State to issue certificates of fitness in accordance with the Rules 62, 63 and 65 of the Central Rules. The Authorized Testing Stations get letter of authority in the Form 39 to issue certificates of fitness, providing only such conditions which are available in the rules formulated by the Central Government. But in the notification in question dated 10.9.2003, the State Government added a new condition in the letter of authority asking the authorized testing stations to get counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors which has not been provided in Rule 65 of the Central Rules. Therefore, this notification is not valid.
12. In reply to the above submission, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 would submit that though Section 56(1) of the Act does not provide for the Motor Vehicle Inspectors to counter-sign over the certificates of fitness issued by the authorized testing stations, Section 56(4) of the Act would provide powers to the Motor Vehicle Inspectors for cancelling the certificates of fitness at any time, if they are satisfied that the requirements of law have not been complied with. When the Motor Vehicle Inspectors have such power to cancel certificate of fitness issued by the authorized testing stations, it must be taken to mean that the provisions of Section 56(4) gives the implied power and enjoins the responsibility on the Motor Vehicle Inspectors to check vehicles in order to verify whether the authorized testing stations are properly granting certificates of fitness in compliance with the requirements of Act and therefore, they are empowered to counter-sign in the fitness certificate.
13. To answer this point, it would be necessary to refer to the various sections and rules which are relevant in this context. Section 56 (1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act provide as follows:
56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. - (1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorized tasting station mentioned in Sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder:
Provided that where the prescribed authority or the 'authorized testing station' refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal.(2) The 'authorized testing station' referred to in Sub-section (1) means a vehicle service station or public or private garage which the State Government, having regard to the experience, training and ability of the operator of such station or garage and the testing equipment and the testing personnel therein, may specify in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government for regulation and control of such stations or garages.
Thus, Section 56(1) of the Act provides that a transport vehicle cannot be said to be validly registered unless it carries a certificate of fitness. The certificate of fitness can be issued by two authorities - (i) by the prescribed authority, namely, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors and (ii) by the Authorized Testing Stations.
It further provides through proviso that whenever the Motor Vehicle Inspectors and the Authorized Testing Stations refuse to issue such certificates, it must give reasons in writing.
As per Section 56(2) of the Act, the State Government can specify the authorized testing stations, having regard to their experience, ability etc., according to the rules made by the Central Government for regulation and control of such testing stations. This also provides that the State Government can control such stations only by specifying the conditions as provided in the rules made by the Central Government for such regulation and control.
14. At this stage, let us refer to the relevant Rules 62, 63 and 65 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, provides as follows:
62. Validity of certificate of fitness. - (1) A certificate of fitness in respect of a transport vehicle granted under Section 56 shall be in Form 38 and such certificate when granted or renewed shall be valid for the period as indicated below:
(a) new transport vehicle
two years
(b) renewal of certificate of fitness in respect of vehiclesmentioned in (a) above
one year
(c) renewal of certificate of fitness in respect of vehicles coveredunder Rule 82 of these rules
three years
(d) fresh registration of imported vehicles
same period as in the case of vehicles manufactured in India havingregard to the date of manufacture;
The above rule provides for the period of validity of certificate of fitness. The certificate in respect of the transport vehicle granted under Section 56 of the Act shall be in Form 38 and such certificate when granted or renewed shall be valid for the period as indicated.
15. Let us now refer to Rule 63, which reads as follows:
63. Regulation and control of authorized testing station. - (1) No operator of an authorized testing station shall issue or renew a certificate of fitness to a transport vehicle under Section 56 without a letter of authority in Form 39 granted by the registering authority.
As per this rule, the authorized testing stations can issue certificate of fitness or renewal certificate to a transport vehicle under Section 56 of the Act only under a letter of authority in From 39. In other words, under the provisions of Rule 63 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, an authorized testing station can function only after obtaining the letter of authority in Form 39. The letter of authority means the license to function as authorized testing station.
16. We shall now look into Rule 65 of the Central Rules, which reads as follows:
65. General conditions to be observed by the holder of letter of authority - The holder of a letter of authority shall -
(a) maintain a register with a separate page for each vehicle containing the registration number of the vehicle for which the certificate of fitness is granted or renewed, the make and model of the vehicle, the engine number and the chassis number, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle, particulars of any permit of such vehicle, period of validity of certificate of fitness granted or renewed and signature of the owner of the vehicle or his authorized representative;
(b) forward the particulars of the transport vehicles for which certificates of fitness have been granted or renewed and the period of validity of such certificate, within two days of grant or renewal of the certificate of fitness, to the authority which has granted the permit and where the transport is not covered by a permit, to the transport authority in whose jurisdiction the vehicle is kept;
(c) issue to every transport vehicle satisfying the requirements of Section 56, a certificate of fitness in accordance with the provisions of Rule 62;
(d) not shift the place of business mentioned in the letter of authority without the prior approval in writing of the registering authority which granted the letter of authority;
(e) keep the premises of the testing station and records and registers maintained by it and all the machinery, equipment and apparatus in the premises at all reasonable times open for inspection by the registering authority or any person of the Motor Vehicles Department of the State Government established under Section 213 authorized in this behalf by the registering authority;
(f) display at a prominent place in its main office the following:
(i) the letter of authority in original issued to the authorized testing station by the registering authority;
(ii) the name and address of the person authorized to issue or renew the certificate of fitness;
(iii) the qualifications of the persons referred to in Clause (a) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 63;
(g) not charge a fee for inspection of a vehicle for the purpose of issue or renewal of the appropriate certificate of fitness in excess of the fee specified in Rule 81;
(h) surrender to the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction over the area, the register referred to Clause (a) as soon as entries in all the pages in the register are completed and in any case, not later than two days after such completion.
17. The above rule would indicate that when the letter of authority is being issued by the registering authority, it may provide for those conditions which the Central Government has provided in Rule 65. As indicated above, Section 56(2) of the Act provides that while issuing the letter of authority by the registering authority, it may specify the conditions only in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government for regulation and control of such stations. As indicated above, the conditions have been provided only under Rule 65 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. When the letter of authority given to the Authorized Testing Stations by the registering authority, it may specify only those conditions which are provided by the Central Government under Rule 65. In other words, the State Government has not been provided with the power to add any terms and conditions in the letter of authority other than those mentioned in Rule 65 of the Central Rules. Admittedly the condition put by the registering authority in the letter of authority asking the testing stations to get the counter-signature of the Motor Vehicles Inspectors is not available in Rule 65. Under those circumstances, it is to be stated that adding some more conditions, which are not available in the relevant rules framed by the Central Government would amount to interference into the exclusive independence of the authorized testing stations in issuing the certificates of fitness.
18. It is argued by the counsel for the respondents that when the prescribed authority, namely, Motor Vehicle Inspectors, has the power to cancel any certificate of fitness issued by the authorized testing stations under Section 56(1) of the Act, it indirectly enjoins the responsibility on the State to check the vehicles and to countersign the certificate of fitness, certifying that certificate of fitness is being properly issued. In this context, it would be appropriate to look into Section 56(4) of the Act, which reads as follows:
56(4). The prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder; and on such cancellation the certificate of registration of the vehicle and any permit granted in respect of the vehicle under Chapter V shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate of fitness has been obtained;
Provided that no such cancellation shall be made by the prescribed authority unless such prescribed authority holds such technical qualification as may be prescribed or where the prescribed authority does not hold such technical qualification on the basis of the report of an officer having such qualifications.
19. The reading of the above provision would clearly indicate the power of the prescribed authority, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, to cancel a certificate of fitness after it was issued. This provision would make it further clear that the prescribed authority, i.e., the Motor Vehicle Inspector, may for reasons to be recorded in writing can cancel a certificate of fitness at any time, if it is satisfied that the requirements of law have not been complied with. Section 56(4) would specifically provide for various conditions for the prescribed authority to cancel the certificate of fitness. Under this section, the prescribed authority, i.e., the Motor Vehicle Inspector, has to verify whether the vehicle has complied with all the requirements of the Act and only when it is satisfied that those requirements have not been complied with, the prescribed authority, i.e., the Motor Vehicle Inspector, can cancel the certificate of fitness which was already issued by the Authorized Testing Station after giving the reasons to be recorded in writing. Even that cancellation can be done through the written order only. That order of cancellation can be challenged on various grounds including the validity of the reasons and also questioning the lack of technical qualification on the part of the Motor Vehicles Inspectors by way of appeals under Section 57. Therefore, Section 56(4) of the Act would not apply to the present facts of the case because the said section would come into play only after issuance of the certificate of fitness and not before. As such, it has to be held that both Section 56 of the Act as well as Rule 65 of the Central Rules do not provide for the powers for the State to issue such a notification adding condition compelling the authorized testing stations to obtain counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, which is not admittedly mentioned as one of the conditions in Rule 65 framed by the Central Government. Consequently, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents on this point does not merit consideration.
20. Nextly, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that even under Rules 67 of the Central Rules, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors are empowered to make inspection of the vehicles at the premises of the testing stations and that it does not provide for the counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the certificates of fitness issued by the authorized testing stations.
On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that Rule 67 of the Central Rules impliedly confers power on the Motor Vehicle Inspectors for inspection and checking of the vehicles at the premises of the authorized testing stations in order to ensure proper compliance of the provisions of the Act while issuing certificates of fitness and as such, by virtue of this power, the State Government is well within its right to authorize the Motor Vehicle Inspectors to counter-sign the certificates of fitness.
21. To deal with this point, it would be worthwhile to refer to Rule 67 of the Central Rules, which reads as follows:
67. Supervision of authorized testing stations.- The registering authority or any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department of the State Government duly authorized in this behalf by the registering authority may, at any time, conduct test checks at the premises of the authorized testing station with a view to ensure that the vehicles are properly tested by the authorized testing station.
The reading of the rule would confer the following powers on the registering authority or the Motor Vehicle Inspectors:
(a) The Motor Vehicle Inspectors or the registering authority may at any time enter into the premises of the authorized testing stations and conduct test checks
(b) The test checks being conducted at the premises should be such to ensure that the vehicles are properly tested by the authorized testing stations.
Thus, this power would empower the Motor Vehicle Inspectors to inspect the premises of the authorized testing stations at any time and supervise the testing of the vehicles by the authorized testing stations. Admittedly, it does not indicate that the Motor Vehicle Inspector takes part in the matter of issuance of the certificate of fitness by the Authorized Testing Station. The power given to the Motor Vehicle Department is only to inspect the premises of the authorized testing stations at any time in order to ensure the proper functioning of the authorized testing stations. It does not mean that every certificate of fitness, which has been issued by the authorized testing station, shall be counter-signed by the Motor Vehicle Inspectors.
22. The perusal of Rule 68 and 69 would further clarify the position. Rules 68 and 69 of the Central Rules would read as follows:
68. Power of registering authority or Regional Transport Authority to call for information.- The authorized testing station shall submit to the registering authority or the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction in the area, such information or returns as may be called for by such authority from time to time.
69. Power of registering authority to suspend or cancel the letter of authority or forfeit security deposit. - (1) If the registering authority is satisfied after giving the holder of a letter of authority an opportunity of being heard, that he has -
(a) failed to maintain the equipment, machinery and apparatus referred to in Sub-clause (e) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 63 in good condition; or
(b) failed to comply with the other requirements laid down in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 63; or
(c) failed to observe correct standards of testing before granting or renewing certificates of fitness as noticed at the time of test-checking referred to in Rule 67 or the frequency of accidents involving transport vehicles covered by certificates of fitness granted or renewed by the authorized testing station attributable to any mechanical defect of the vehicle, it may -
(i) suspend the letter of authority for a specified period; or
(ii) cancel the letter of authority; or
(iii) order forfeiture of the security deposit furnished by the authorized testing station.
(2) Where the letter of authority is suspended or cancelled under Sub-rule (1), the holder of the letter of authority shall surrender the same to the registering authority forthwith.
(3) Where the security deposit is forfeited under Sub-rule (1), the holder of the letter within thirty days of the receipt of the order of forfeiture, remit to the registering authority the amount ordered to be forfeited so that the requirement of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 63 in relation to deposit of security is complied with.
23. Under Rule 68, the registering authority or the Motor Vehicle Inspector can call for any information from the authorized testing stations. Under Rule 69, the registering authority can suspend or cancel the letter of authority, if the registering authority is satisfied that the authorized testing station has failed to maintain equipments, machineries and apparatus etc., failed to comply with the other requirements and failed to observe correct standard of testing before granting the certificates of fitness. So both these rules only relate to the checking of the premises of the Authorized Testing Stations by the prescribed authority, i.e., the Motor Vehicle Inspector, in order to verify whether there is proper maintenance and proper functioning in the testing stations and if it is found that there is no proper functioning, the letter of authority can be cancelled by the registering authority.
24. Further if such an order is passed cancelling the letter of authority, the aggrieved person can have the remedy of appeal under Rule 70, which reads as follows:
70. Appeal. - Any person aggrieved by an order of the registering authority under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 63 or Sub-rule (1) of Rule 69, may, within thirty days of the receipt of the order, appeal to the Head of the Motor Vehicles Department of the State Government established under Section 213.
25. Therefore, Rules 67 to 70 would provide that the registering authority or the Motor Vehicle Inspector could inspect the premises of the Authorized Testing Station at any time and on test, if found that there is no proper maintenance, it could suspend or cancel the letter of authority or forfeiture the security deposit.
26. Section 56(4) of the Act would deal with the power of the Registering Authority or the Motor Vehicle Inspector for cancellation of the certificate of fitness; on the other hand, Rules 67 to 69 would deal with the power of the registering authority or the Motor Vehicle Inspector to make an inspection and conduct test checks at the premises of the Authorized Testing Stations and cancel the letter of authority, if it is not properly functionings. Therefore, relevant sections under the Act and the relevant Rules the Central Rules would not provide any power for the Motor Vehicle Inspectors to cross-check the certificates of fitness through putting a counter-signature. In other words, the State Government cannot confer the power on the Motor Vehicle Inspectors to cross-check the certificates of fitness before they are issued. The power of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors to cancel the certificates of fitness can only be exercised after issuance of the certificate of fitness and that power cannot be interfered with by the Motor Vehicle Inspectors by virtue of the power conferred on them. Therefore, this notification in question cannot be said to be in consonance with Section 56 of the Act or with the relevant rules of the Central Rules.
27. The issue in question can be viewed from yet another angle also. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, under the old Act, i.e. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the only authority, which was given power to issue certificate of fitness, was the Motor Vehicle Inspector of the area. Now the Parliament has framed a provision in the Rules under the Act providing the said power of issuance of certificates of fitness to two authorities - one is the Motor Vehicle Inspector and another is the authorized testing stations. The aim and object of introducing new sections in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was due to the vast increase in the number of both commercial and personal vehicles in the country and also with a view to reducing the burden of the prescribed authority, i.e. the Motor Vehicle Inspectors, in issuing the certificates of fitness. In other words, this burden was sought to be shared both by the Authorized Testing Stations as well as by the Motor Vehicle Inspector through the new Act enacted by the Parliament. When the Authorized Testing Stations were created under Section 56(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act to issue certificate of fitness and when the State Government is empowered to vest the power with the Authorized Testing Stations as a separate authority, the State Government cannot compel the Authorized Testing Stations to get the counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors over the certificates as it would amount to again giving the burden of issuance of the certificates of fitness to the Motor Vehicle Inspector.
28. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, two parallel authorities have been created for issuance of the certificates of fitness under the new Act. Both are separate agencies issuing certificates of fitness. As indicated above, two different systems have been created by the Parliament, noticing the increase in the number of vehicles in the country and in public interest. If such a power vested with the two separate and alternative agencies is again brought within the control of one agency, then the very purpose of creating another agency under the new Act would be frustrated.
29. Of course, the relevant provisions would indicate that if such power is misused by the authorized testing stations, their licenses or the letters of authority can be cancelled by the Registering Authority under Rule 69 of the Central Rules. Similarly, if the certificates of fitness issued by the authorized testing stations do not comply with the requirements of the Act after checking of the vehicles, the said certificates can be cancelled by the Prescribed Authority, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, under Section 56(4) of the Act, 1988. The Act does not provide that the Motor Vehicle Inspectors can check the certificates of fitness; on the other hand, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors could check the vehicles and on the basis of the checking, if the Motor Vehicle Inspector comes to the conclusion that the certificate of fitness issued in favour of the said vehicle did not comply with the requirements of the Act, then they could very well cancel the certificate of fitness. As such, cancellation of the certificate of fitness alone can be done by the Motor Vehicle Inspectors that too in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and not otherwise.
30. under Section 56(2), the right to issue certificates of fitness has been given to the authorized testing stations. In order to acquire the right, the authorized testing stations are required to obtain letter of authority in Form No. 39 from the registering authority. The letter of authority can be granted only to those persons who possess various types of testing equipments and who must have diploma in Automobile Engineering, experience of minimum service of 5 years in automobile workshop etc., as per Rule 63 of the Central Rules.
31. It is incidentally contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the notification in question issued by the State Government providing for the counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the certificates of fitness issued by the authorized testing stations should be construed to have been issued under Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This contention does not deserve acceptance. under Section 213 of the Act read with explanation to Sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 62 of the Central Rules, the State Government is only required to notify the Inspecting Officers in the Department, whereas in the present case the State Government has conferred the power to the Motor Vehicle Inspectors to counter-sign the certificates of fitness issued by the authorized testing stations, which is not permissible either under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Central Rules.
32. As indicated above, putting a general condition regarding regulation of the testing stations is the sole domain of the Central Government. The State Government cannot change the rules, nor create any rule so as to affect the rules already framed by the Central Government. Change of rules can only be done by the Central Government as provided under Section 56(2) of the Act and under Rule 65 of the Central Rules, if the State Government has noticed any difficulties and shortcomings regarding issuance of certificates of fitness, it is but proper for them to approach the Central Government for such amendment. In other words, the rule making power regarding the requirement of the counter-signature by the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the certificates of fitness issued by the authorized testing stations vests only with the Central Government and not with the State Government.
33. In view of the discussions made above, we are to conclude that the notification in question dated 10.9.2003, which lacks jurisdiction, is liable to be quashed. To sum up, answer to the questions posed in this case is as follows:
The Authorized Testing Stations cannot be compelled to get the counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the certificates of fitness, as it amounts to interference into the exclusive power of the Authorized Testing Stations to issue such certificates and hence, the State Government, by issuing the aforesaid notification putting condition of getting the counter-signature from the Motor Vehicle Inspectors, cannot be allowed to indirectly take away the powers of the Authorized Testing Stations given by the Parliament to issue certificates of fitness.
34. Considering the above conclusion, the notification dated 10.9.2003 is quashed and consequently, other directions with regard to adding other conditions, i.e. condition Nos. (n) and (p) in the letter of authority of the Authorized Testing Station and the order dated 24.4.2004 contained in Annexure - 13 are also quashed.
This application is allowed.