Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Order reserved on 01.05.2025 Order pronounced on 08.09.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3191 of 2022 Ghanshyam Das Rungta Foundation Through Secretary Dr. Sourabh Rungta S/o Mr. Santosh Rungta, Aged - 47 Years , R/o Rungta Bhawan, G.E. Road, Ganjpara, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways , Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi, 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur , Chhattisgarh 3. 4. Regional Transport Officer Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh Regional Transport Officer Tehsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 3210 of 2022 Gdr Educational Society Through Secretary Mr. Sonal Rungta, S/o Mr. Santosh Rungta Aged About 48 Years, R/o Rugntta Bhawan, G.E. Road, Ganjpara,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 3. Regional Transport Officer Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Regional Transport Officer Tehsil And District Durg,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 3369 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Jan Pragati Education Society Through Secretary Mr. Harjeet Singh Hura, S/o Late Gulab Singh Hura, Aged - 55 Years, R/o Jpes Office, 3rd Floor, Laxmi Plaza, Opposite Electricity Office, Budhapara, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways Transport Bhawan, 1,parliament Street, New Delhi. 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Regional Transport Officer Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioners For Respondent/UoI Shri Siddharth Shukla, Advocate : : Ms. Jyoti Singh Advocate on behalf of Shri Ramakant For Respondents/State : Mishra, learned DSG Shri Prafull N. Bharat learned AG with Shri Ankur Kashyap learned Dy. GA DB : Hon’ble (Smt.) Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput C A V Order As the issue involved in all the aforesaid petitions is one and the same, they
Decision
are being disposed of by this common order:- 2. The petitioners in the aforesaid three Writ Petitions have challenged the vires of Rule 76-B (16) of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1994”) which provides that “No School Bus should be more than 12 years old”. The said Rule is said to be in contravention of Section 41 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988”) which provides that a certificate of registration shall be valid for a period of fifteen 3 years from the date of issue of such certificate and shall be renewable. The said Rule is also said to be in contravention of Section 59 of the Act of 1988 wherein Respondent – Union of India has the power to fix the age limit of the Motor Vehicle. It has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that Rule 76-B of the Rules of 1994 stipulates the Conditions for School Bus Permit, and in lieu of the same Registration Certificate of School Bus owned by the Schools and Colleges are issued for a period of twelve years whereas the Central Act provides that validity of Registration Certificate will be fifteen years, renewable subject to fitness certificate. 3. The petitioners in all the aforesaid petitions are the Education Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1971 running various academic institutions across the State. The petitioners had purchased number of buses for transportation of their students, but on account of Rule 76-B (16) of the Rules of 1994, only some of the buses can validly operate but some are rendered non- operational in spite of being in very good condition. The stand of the petitioners is that the buses belonging to the petitioners are exclusively operated for transportation of their students unlike the other transport vehicles or Contracted buses. Further stand of the petitioners is that registration of the School/College Buses is governed under the Act of 1988 whereas conditions for the permits are provided under the Rules of 1994 introduced by the State of Chhattisgarh. According to the petitioners, the buses are covered under the definition given in Section 2(28) of the Act of 1988, and that according to Section 41(7) thereof registration certificate is to be issued for a period of fifteen years and also made renewable subject to fitness certificate. Age limit of the motor vehicle, as per the provision of Section 59 of the Act of 1988, can exclusively be done only by Union of India/respondent No. 1 herein. 4. Further case of the petitioners is that State of Chhattisgarh/respondent No.2 introduced an amendment on 30th November, 2015 in the Rules of 1994 deriving power under Section 96 of the Act of 1988 by inserting Rule 76-B thereto, and that Rule 76-B (16) says that “No vehicles shall be more than 12 years old”. In other 4 words, the plain meaning of this amended Rule is that the School/College buses belonging to the petitioners will be registered only for a period of 12 years, and thus they stood de-registered between 2020 and 2022. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that the Rules of 1994 is a subordinate legislation, which can be called in question on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation can be questioned, and that subordinate legislation must be framed strictly in conformity with the legislative intent as reflected in the parent Act, or else, it would open to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness and being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes the following submissions in support of his standpoint:- 5.1 that State of Chhattisgarh/R-2 has no power to fix the age limit of vehicles, rather it is within the exclusive domain of Union of India/R-1 as per Section 59 of the Act of 1988; 5.2 that State of Chhattisgarh/R-2 has encroached upon the power of Union of India/R-1 in the garb of stipulating the conditions for School Bus Permit and fixing the age limit thereof, enshrined under Section 59 of the Act of 1988; 5.3 that the newly incorporated Rule 76-B(16) is inconsistent with Section 96 of the Act of 1988 which bestows power on the State Government to make rules; 5.4 that Section 96 of the Act of 1988 does not empower the State to govern the registration and fix the life of the vehicles belonging to the Educational Institutions; 5.5 that Union of India/R-1 had also introduced the Motor Vehicles (Registration and Functions of Vehicle Scrapping Facility) Rules, 2021 (henceforth referred to as “Rules of 2021”), and Rule 8 thereof provides for “Criteria for Scrapping of Vehicles”), but it does not postulate any age limit of the motor vehicles for scrapping purposes, whereas it says that a vehicle will be a scrap if not renewed as per Rule 52 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and if certificate of fitness is not issued as per Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989; 5 5.6 that the State of Chhattisgarh/R-2 has exceeded the delegated legislation though it is a settled legal position that what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done indirectly or obliquely, or to put it differently, what is prohibited by law, cannot be allowed to be done by circuitous contrivance; 5.7 Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti (2022) 6 SCC 65, in the matter of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) v. State of Punjab (2019) 16 SCC 95 decision of this Court in the matter of Dr. Sandeep Jain and others v. State of Chhattisgarh rendered in WPC No. 2004 of 2017 dated 26.07.2018. 6. Learned counsel for respondents/State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have no right to challenge the constitutional validity of the impugned Rule as they are the society registered under the Societies Registration act, 1971 and does not fall under the definition of ‘citizen’ under the Citizenship Act, 1955 enacted by Parliament under Article 11 of the Constitution of India. He submits that freedom guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India can only be enforced by a citizen which the petitioners are not. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Vishakhapatnam (1963) 4 SCR 99, in the matter of Indian Social Action Forum v. Union of India (2021) 15 SCC 60, in the matter of Bennet Coleman and Co. v. Union of India (1972) 2 SCC 788 and in the matter of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 3 SCC 193 and on the decision of this Court in the matter of Jain Brothers v. Union of India and others 2023 SCC Onlinwe Chh 5493. 7. Learned State counsel further submits that the subordinate legislation can be questioned only on the ground that it is unreasonable, arbitrary and does not stand the test under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submits that judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the 6 legislature, however, role of the Courts is limited to determine whether legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned by the Constitution, but in so doing, the Courts must remain within their self imposed limits. He submits that legislative enactments can be struck down only on the ground of legislative competence and abridgment of fundamental rights or constitutional provisions and then when there is manifest arbitrariness in the same. In support of this argument, reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India (2023) 10 SCC 276. State counsel however laid stress that presumption is in favour of the constitutionality of the legislative enactment, and if two views surface, the one making the statute constitutional and the other making it unconstitutional, the former should prevail over the latter. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Himanshu Kumar Sharma v. Registrar General, High Court 2023 SCC Online Chh 2832. 8. Learned State counsel further submits that the Rule has been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 96 of the Act of 1988 and that Sections 41 and 59 fall under Chapter IV, Registration of Vehicles, whereas Section 96 finds place in Chapter V, Control of Transport Vehicles. He submits that the Rule neither affects the registration of the school bus nor does it limit the life of the bus. It only provides that permit may not be granted to a bus of more than 12 years old. He further submits that the Rule has been framed with the pious intention based on road safety, safety of students and to ensure pollution free traffic. Similar policy decision taken by State Road Transport Authority, Uttar Pradesh was called in question in a writ petition (Shanti Dham School v. State of UP, 2013 SCC Online All 11926) where challenge to the circular issued by State Road Transport Authority was repelled by the High Court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Subhash Chandra v. State of UP (1980) 2 SCC 324 holding as under:- “4. Section 51(2) (x) authorises the impost of any condition, of course, having a nexus with the statutory purpose. It is undeniable that human 7 safety is one such purpose. The State's neglect in this area of policing public transport is deplorable but when it does act by prescribing a condition the court cannot be persuaded into little legalism and harmful negativism. The short question is whether the prescription that the bus shall be at a seven-year old model one is relevant to the condition of the vehicle and its passengers' comparative safety and comfort on our chaotic highways. Obviously, it is. The older the model, the less the chances of the latest safety measures being built into the vehicle. Every new model incorporates new devices to reduce danger and promote comfort. Every new model assures its age to be young, fresh and strong, less likely to suffer sudden failures and breakages, less susceptible to wear and tear and moral fatigue leading to unexpected collapse. When we buy a car or any other machine why do we look for the latest model ? Vintage vehicles are good for centenarian display of curios and cannot but be mobile menaces on our notoriously neglected highways. We have no hesitation to hold, from the point of view of the human rights of road users, that the condition regarding the model of the permitted bus is within jurisdiction, and not to prescribe such safety clauses is abdication of statutory duty.” 9. According to the State counsel, the impugned rules neither put an end to the registration of the vehicle nor does it make the vehicle legally dead. It merely prohibits the usage to carry school children so that the students who are future of the nation are not put to the risk of their life. In support of his argument as to the legislative competence and challenge to subordinate legislation being ‘ultra vires’ the parent Act, learned State counsel places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. ICAI (2024) SCC Online SC 114. It is submitted that the impugned Rule has been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 96 and Section 96 (2)(xxxiii) is the source of general power for any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed. It is further submitted that the power to frame rule for imposing condition for grant of permit to a school bus is derived from the above clause and thus falls well within the competence of the State Legislature serving the clear objective of safety of the students. It is thus submitted that challenge to the validity of Rule 76-B(16) of the 8 Rules of 1994 is without any merit and being so the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. First of all this Court feels it necessary to have a close look of the amended Rule 76-B(16) which has been challenged in these writ petitions, which is reproduced as hereunder: 76-B. Conditions for School Bus Permit - Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 74, the following conditions should be attached to every School bus permit, namely:- (1) Each bus shall be painted in yellow colour and "School Bus" shall be Written in front andrear of the vehicle under sub-rule (5) of rule 114 of Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. The name, address and telephone/mobile number of the School shall be written on a 9 inch board strip on outer side of the school bus on both the sides. (2) The buses shall have a horizontal grill fitted on the windows. (3) Each school bus shall have first aid kit and fire extinguisher. (4) Each school bus shall have an attendant trained in first aid, safety of students and dealing with emergency situations who shall assist students in boarding and deboarding. (5) The school bus shall be operated by such drivers who have held permanent driving license and have minimum 5 years experience in driving heavy vehicles Such driver will not be employed who have been challaned on more than 2 occasions in one year for offences like violating lane system, violating signal lights, or allowing an unauthorized person to enter. A driver who has been challaned even once for the offence of over speeding, drunken driving, and dangerous driving, shall not be employed. An affidavit to this effect shall be obtained by the educational institution from the driver of the vehicle. (6) Other that students, the school bus is permitted to carry only guardians of students or teachers of educational institution who may travel to check safety norms. No other person shall be allowed to travel in such busses. 9 (7) Each school bus shall have space to keep school bags under the seat. (8) The school busses shall operate within the prescribed speed limit. Each bus shall be fitted with speed governor. (9) Each school bus shall have an emergency door on the right side which shall be closed properly and shall be opened only in emergency. (10) The door of the school busses shall be fitted with reliable locking system. (11) Coloured films on glasses and curtains shall not be used on the windows of school busses. Security glasses as provided in rule 100 of the Motor Vehicle Rules of 1989 shall be used. (12) No pressure horn shall be fitted in school busses. During operation at night, the school busses shall have blue colour bulb fitted inside. (13) The school busses shall be regularly maintained and cleaned. (14) For contract vehicles, valid fitness certificate under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (Number 59 of 1988), shall have to be obtained. (15) Each school bus shall have valid insurance certificate, pollution control certificate and certificate of payment of taxes. (16) No school bus shall be more than 12 years old. 12. Whether the aforesaid Rule is inconsistent with Section 41(7) and Section 59 of the Act of 1988, this Court feels it apposite to examine these legal provisions keeping in mind the facts of the present case. The relevant provisions read as under:- "41. Registration, how to be made. (1) An application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration 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 10 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. [Provided further that in the case of a new motor vehicle, the application for registration in the State shall be made by the dealer of such motor vehicle, if the new motor vehicle is being registered in the same State in which the dealer is situated.] (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 [a certificate of registration in the name of the owner] 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. [Provided that in case of a new motor vehicle, the application for the registration of which is made under the second proviso to sub- section (1), such motor vehicle shall not be delivered to the owner until such registration mark is displayed on the motor vehicle in such form and manner as may prescribed by the Central Government.] (7) A certificate of registration issued under sub-section (3), whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in respect of a motor 11 vehicle, [*], shall, subject to the provisions contained in this Act, be valid only for a period of fifteen years from the date of issue of such certificate [or for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government] and shall be renewable. (8) An application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle, [*], for the renewal of a certificate of registration shall be made within such period and in such form, containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (9) An application referred to in sub-section (8) shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (10)Subject to the provisions of section 56, the registering authority may, on receipt of an application under sub-section (8), renew the certificate of registration [for such period, as may be prescribed by the Central Government] and intimate the fact to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority. [Provided that the Central Government may prescribe different period of renewal for different types of motor vehicles.] [*] [*] [*] (14) An application for the issue of a duplicate certificate of registration shall be made to the [last registering authority] in such form, containing such particulars and information along with such fee as may be prescribed by the Central Government." Also, Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is being reproduced as under: 59. Power to fix age limit of motor vehicle (1) The Central Government may, having regard to the public safety, convenience and objects of this Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the life of a motor vehicle reckoned from the date of its manufacture, after the expiry of which the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder: Provided that the Central Government may specify different ages for different classes or different types of motor vehicles. 12 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), the Central Government may, having regard to the purpose of a motor vehicle, such as, display or use for the purposes of a demonstration in any exhibition, use for the purposes of technical research or taking part in a vintage car rally, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt, by a general or special order, subject to such conditions as may be specified in such notification, any class or type of motor vehicle from the operation of subsection (1) for the purpose to be stated in the notification. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 56, no prescribed authority or authorised testing station shall grant a certificate of fitness to a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of any notification issued under sub-section (1). (4) The Central Government may, having regard to the public safety, convenience, protection of the environment and the objects of this Act, make rules prescribing the manner of recycling of motor vehicles and parts thereof which have exceeded their life.” 13. Record shows that the petitioners are Educational Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1971 since 2001 and their Buses are used for transportation of their students, but due to the applicability of Rule 76-B (16) of Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994, Registration Certificate of only some buses is valid rendering them operational. It is pertinent to note that buses operated by the Petitioners are exclusively dedicated for transportation of their institute's students due to which their 'overall running and wear and tear is not similar to other transport vehicles/Contracted Buses. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (No. 59 of 1988), has brought amendment in the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and the same having been published, as required by sub-section (1) of Section 212 of the said Act. It is worthwhile to note that Chapter V of Motor Vehicle Act does not stipulate either about the life of the vehicle or regarding validity of certificate of registration. Respondent No.2 by introducing Rule 76-B (16) has changed the validity of Registration Certificate of School Buses. Section 115 of the Act of 1988 13 gives the power to the State Government to restrict the use of vehicles, which reads as under:- "Section 115. Power to restrict the use o vehicles. The State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the State Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge, may by notification in the Official Gazette prohibit or restrict subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the notification the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class or description of motor vehicles or the use of trailers either generally in a specified area or on a specified road and when any such prohibition or restriction is imposed, shall cause appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under Section 116 at suitable places: Provided that where any prohibition or restriction under this section is to remain in force for not more than one month, notification in the Official Gazette, shall not be necessary, but such local publicity as the circumstances may permit, shall be given such prohibition or restriction." 14. From bare perusal of the above quoted section it would be crystal clear that the State Government has the power to prohibit or restrict the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class or description of motor vehicles if it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience or because of the nature of the road or bridge. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudri & others Vs. Union of India & others, (2003) 11 SCC 146, in the following words: ‘35 (a) .. … … … … ... (b) that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a 'clear transgression of the constitutional principles; (c) that it must be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are 14 directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds; (d) that the legislature is free to recognize degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest; (e) that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation,..." 16. What is important to make a mention here is that the matter had come up for hearing before this Court on 28.11.2024 and reserved for orders. On 17.02.2025 the order was pronounced and the while framing a question of law the matter was sent for consideration before the larger Bench. Question of law so framed reads as under:- “ Whether the State Government is competent in its rule making authority including under Section 96(2)(xxxiii) of the Act of 1988 to lay down the conditions for grant of permit as stated in Section 76-B(16) of the Rules of 1994 and also in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra (supra) followed in S.K. Bhatia (supra)?” 17. On 18.03.2025 the larger Bench of this Court has answered the aforesaid of question law, relevant part thereof reads as under:- “20. The amendment which is sought to be challenged in these petitions, has been brought in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 96 of the Act of 1988. Section 96 is in respect of the power of the State Government to make rules for the purpose Chapter – V which is with relation to control of transport vehicles. The petitioners, which are educational societies run various schools and colleges and they use buses for transporting the students/children. It is important that the condition of the buses must be such so that it may not cause any kind of threat to the students/children while they are being plied on the roads. The State Government, in its wisdom has thought it appropriate not to allow such buses to be used as school bus which are more than 12 years old. If the State Government is concerned with the safety of the 15 students/children, it cannot be said that it has caused any infringement of any of the rights of any individual. There is nothing in Section 96 (2) (xxxiii) of the Act of 1988 which bars the State Government from laying down the conditions as has been laid in rule 76-B(16) of the Rules of 1994. The question referred by learned Division Bench already stands answered in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in S.K. Bhatia (supra) and Subhash Chandra (supra). As such, we are of the considered opinion that the reference made to this Bench by the learned Division Bench deserves to be answered in affirmation. It is answered accordingly.” 18. Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the amendment made by the State Government while exercising the power conferred under Section 96 of the Act of 1988, the condition that “No school bus shall be more than 12 years old” cannot be said to arbitrary, unconstitutional and unreasonable. Therefore, these petitions do not have any merit and are liable to be dismissed. They are dismissed as such. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.09.15 19:06:04 +0530