Arjunsingh Ganeshram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - law, in our view, is well settled that vested rights are not affected unless retrospectivity is manifest on the face of any stautory provision. ' that clearly excludes, in our view, scope of attributing retrospectivity to rule 88 of the new rules framed under the new act.order1. heard counsel.2. vires or no vires, the matter need not prolong any further in this court. we have been hearing time and again that the vires of rule 88 of central motor vehicle rules, 1989 is being considered at the main seat. we have taken a different view on examination of the provisions of section 59 of the new act and reading that along with section 217 of the act. obviously, rule 88 was framed to give effect to the provisions of section 59 and that position is being kept in view. we extract the rule : --'88. age of motor vehicle for the purpose of national permit. -- (1) no national permit shall be granted in respect of a goods carriage which is more than nine years old at any point of time. (2) a national permit shall be deemed to be invalid from the date the vehicle covered by the permit completes nine years from the date of its initial registration. explanation. -- for the purpose of this rule, the period of nine years shall be computed from the date of initial registration of the goods carriage concerned.' 3. we entertain no doubt about the position that when a national permit is granted exercising power under the new act, the provisions of rule 88 would apply because the rule is not made retrospective and the clear mandate of the rule is prospective, not to grant any national permit in respect of goods vehicle which is more than 9 years' old. we do not think if sub-rule (2) of that rule explains that mandate any more. that merely qualifies the mandate of sub-rule (1) making the scope of national permit granted under sub-rule (1) clear. 'the date of initial registration' is to be kept in view in reckoning the period of nine years, whether the registration was done prior to the enactment of the new act or under the new act itself. law, in our view, is well settled that vested rights are not affected unless retrospectivity is manifest on the face of any stautory provision. the explanation limits accordingly the invalidity contemplated under sub-rule (2), to the 'new' permit.4. section 217(2)(b) is a saving clause under the new act and that lends meaning to the construction of rule 88 which has appealed to us. legislatures clear intention is manifested, not to affect validity of any 'certificate of fitness or registration or licence or permit issued or granted under the repealed enactment.' that clearly excludes, in our view, scope of attributing retrospectivity to rule 88 of the new rules framed under the new act.5. taking tentatively the above view, we are of the opinion that this petition is to be disposed of finally because the old permit (annexure p/2) which was issued on 16-11-1988 is valid in terms of the said permit, upto 15-10-1993. the petitioner has approached us because authorisation (annexure p/3) which was issued to him to operate the vehicle in six states expires on 31-3-1992 and a fresh authorisation has to be obtained by him on making the requisite deposit contemplated under the law in that regard.6. once again we reiterate that we have not rendered any decision on the vires of the relevant rule but taking the view that rule 88 is not to be retrospectively construed, the petitioner has entitlement for authorisation prayed. it is submitted by shri dudawat that copy of the application he has not filed as annexure to the petition but that application has not been disposed of.7. this petition is, accordingly, allowed in terms of the direction to the secretary, r.t.a., the respondent no. 3, to issue the authorisation prayed on petitioners making requisite deposit and completing other formalities in that regard.c.c. today.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Heard counsel.

2. Vires or no vires, the matter need not prolong any further in this Court. We have been hearing time and again that the vires of Rule 88 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 is being considered at the Main Seat. We have taken a different view on examination of the provisions of Section 59 of the New Act and reading that along with Section 217 of the Act. Obviously, Rule 88 was framed to give effect to the provisions of Section 59 and that position is being kept in view. We extract the Rule : --

'88. Age of motor vehicle for the purpose of national permit. -- (1) No national permit shall be granted in respect of a goods carriage which is more than nine years old at any point of time.

(2) A national permit shall be deemed to be invalid from the date the vehicle covered by the permit completes nine years from the date of its initial registration.

Explanation. -- For the purpose of this rule, the period of nine years shall be computed from the date of initial registration of the goods carriage concerned.'

3. We entertain no doubt about the position that when a national permit is granted exercising power under the New Act, the provisions of Rule 88 would apply because the rule is not made retrospective and the clear mandate of the rule is prospective, not to grant any national permit in respect of goods vehicle which is more than 9 years' old. We do not think if Sub-rule (2) of that rule explains that mandate any more. That merely qualifies the mandate of Sub-rule (1) making the scope of national permit granted under Sub-rule (1) clear. 'The date of initial registration' is to be kept in view in reckoning the period of nine years, whether the registration was done prior to the enactment of the New Act or under the New Act itself. Law, in our view, is well settled that vested rights are not affected unless retrospectivity is manifest on the face of any stautory provision. The explanation limits accordingly the invalidity contemplated under Sub-rule (2), to the 'new' permit.

4. Section 217(2)(b) is a saving clause under the New Act and that lends meaning to the construction of Rule 88 which has appealed to us. Legislatures clear intention is manifested, not to affect validity of any 'certificate of fitness or registration or licence or permit issued or granted under the repealed enactment.' That clearly excludes, in our view, scope of attributing retrospectivity to Rule 88 of the New Rules framed under the New Act.

5. Taking tentatively the above view, we are of the opinion that this petition is to be disposed of finally because the old permit (Annexure P/2) which was issued on 16-11-1988 is valid in terms of the said permit, upto 15-10-1993. The petitioner has approached us because authorisation (Annexure P/3) which was issued to him to operate the vehicle in six States expires on 31-3-1992 and a fresh authorisation has to be obtained by him on making the requisite deposit contemplated under the law in that regard.

6. Once again we reiterate that we have not rendered any decision on the vires of the relevant rule but taking the view that Rule 88 is not to be retrospectively construed, the petitioner has entitlement for authorisation prayed. It is submitted by Shri Dudawat that copy of the application he has not filed as annexure to the petition but that application has not been disposed of.

7. This petition is, accordingly, allowed in terms of the direction to the Secretary, R.T.A., the respondent No. 3, to issue the authorisation prayed on petitioners making requisite deposit and completing other formalities in that regard.

C.C. today.