Holding

Rule 55A is not ultra vires; the State Government, under Sections 65(1) and 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act, may levy fees for reserving registration numbers.

Summary

The Madhya Pradesh High Court struck down Rule 55A of the State Motor Vehicles Rules, which imposed fees for reserving specific vehicle registration numbers, holding it ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The State appealed, arguing that under Sections 65(1) and 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act it has the power to levy such fees as a service. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Sections 41(2), 41(6), 64(d) and the residual power under Section 211, concluding that the State’s authority to charge fees for the reservation of numbers is expressly supported by the Act. It held that the assignment of registration numbers is a distinct service for which the State may prescribe fees, and that Rule 55A does not conflict with the Central Rules. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgment and allowed the appeal, upholding the validity of Rule 55A.

Issues considered

The validity of Rule 55A of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, prescribing fees for reservation of registration numbers.
Whether the State Government has authority under Section 65(1) and Section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to levy such fees.
Whether Section 41(2) of the Act confers exclusive fee‑levying power to the Central Government, thereby excluding the State.
Whether there is any repugnancy between the State rule and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Whether the assignment of registration numbers constitutes a service for which the State may charge a fee.

Legislation cited

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989s. Form 20, s. Rule 55, s. Rule 81
Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994s. Rule 55A
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 211, s. 41(2), s. 41(6), s. 64(d), s. 65(1)

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActSection 211Rule 55AReservation of registration numbersFee levyState legislative competenceUltra viresDelegated legislationCentral vs State power

Judgment

734 [2020]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 7 S.C.R. 734 [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
v.
RAKESH SETHI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7074 of 2008)
B AUGUST 26, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994:
r. 55 A – Validity of – High Court held that Rule 55-A is ultra
C vires the State’s power under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Held: In view of ss. 65(1) and 211 of
Motor Vehicles Act, State Government has the authority to prescribe
a fee for reserving certain numbers or distinguishing marks to be
assigned as registration numbers – Therefore, Rule 55A is not in
excess of the powers conferred upon the State by the Act or the
D
Central Rules – The State was competent to make the legislation
through the provisions of the Act – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 –
ss. 65(1) and 211 – Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
E Held: 1. The High Court, in its impugned judgement, lost
sight of the true import of Section 211 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. The existence of specific provisions empowering the State
[such as Sections 41(13), 47(7), 49(4) and 50(5)] of the Act, means
that the power of the State to claim or charge amounts, is
specifically recognized by express provisions. Further, there are
F certain services and functions for which the State is empowered
to levy fees. It is precisely to cover these contingencies, i.e. where
the service is rendered or some function performed, that the State
is empowered by a residual provision (much like the Central
Government with which it shares the power concurrently) to levy
G fees. Section 211 is cast in wide terms and that any rule which
the Central Government or the State Government is empowered
to make under the Act may, notwithstanding the absence of any
express provision to that effect, provide for the levy of such fees in
respect of applications, amendment of documents, issue of
certificates, licences, permits, tests, endorsements, badges, plates,
H
734
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 735

countersignatures, authorisation, supply of statistics or copies of A
documents or orders and for any other purpose or matter involving
the rendering of any service. Clearly, therefore, the Parliament
intended that contingencies not covered by a specific power to
levy fees or amounts, which entailed some activity on the part of
the State, including rendering of any service could be legitimately
B
charged or subjected to the levy of fee or amounts. [Para 29]
[754-D-G]
2. The assignment of numbers by the registering authority
through an official/agency or department notified by the State
Government, cannot be seen as a mere step – albeit at the fag- C
end of the registration allotment process. In fact, though it is the
culmination of the allotment process, it is nevertheless an
important step. The state is entitled to indicate its choice or
manner of assigning by prescribing a particular set of procedures
for the assignment of numbers. Thus, for instance, the assignment
of the concerned “code” - to the individual registering authorities D
followed by the assignment of numerics may follow a
predetermined pattern which may be district wise, State
Government department wise (in the case of publicly owned
vehicles), different sequences for buses and heavy vehicles and
so on. If such a predetermined choice can be made by prescribing
E
the mode of assignment, it is both regulatory and at the same
time indicative of State policy. Per se, the Court cannot brush
aside the element of service which may be involved – especially
if the general public or a sub-section of it, wishes to choose
particular numbers for various considerations. Such “fancy”
numbers or “auspicious” numbers may well therefore have to be F
set apart having regard to the peculiar socio-cultural needs of
the people of the state. It is in such an event that the availability
of such numbers and their reservation as a choice and the power
of their assignment assumes importance. In the impugned Rule
55A in the present instance, introduced in 2001 through
G
amendment by the State of M.P., prescribes four different fees –
` 15000/- for the registration marks 1 to 9 in any series prevalent
within the jurisdiction of the registering authority; and
` 12000/- for reservation of marks from 10 to 100 in any series
within the jurisdiction of the registering authority. For reservation
of large series of numbers indicated in Rule 55A(c), ` 10000/- H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A and ` 2000/- for reservation of any other number or numbers within
1000 from the last number assigned in the serial order. In addition
to charging such fees, the registering authority is enjoined by
Rule 55A(2) to follow the principle of first-come-first-serve in
reserving particular numbers; and to allot the registration mark
reserved upon production of the vehicle along with the application
B
in Form-20 (of the Central Rules), provided the vehicle is
compliant with the provisions of the Act and Rules. By Rule 55A(d),
the reservation of the mark would be cancelled if the vehicle is
not produced for allotment within three months from the date of
allotment. Obviously, this is meant to avoid abuse of the
C reservation process by trafficking in numbers, by providing finite
time within which such numbers can be used. [Paras 30, 31][754-
H; 755-A-D; 756-A; 757-A-D]
3. The generality of the power under Section 65(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act to frame rules is sufficient along with Section
D 211, to conclude that the State Government has the authority to
prescribe a fee for reserving certain numbers or distinguishing
marks to be assigned as registration numbers. It has not been
shown how the setting apart of or reservation of some numbers –
here, a fraction of the large potential batch of numbers which the
registering authority can otherwise assign to vehicles, is per se
E arbitrary or unreasonable. Neither were any such arguments urged
before this Court. [Para 33][758-D-F]
4. Whenever a State confers rule making power or
empowers delegated legislation, i.e. where or wherever the statute
first lays out a general provision authorizing subordinate
F legislation or the framing of separate legislation to carry out the
purposes of that Act, and uses the expression “in particular and
without generality of the foregoing powers”, followed by another
delegation which enumerates specific powers preceded by
expressions such as “in particular and without the generality of
G the foregoing powers,” the particularization is only illustrative and
does not subsume the general power. [Para 34][758-F-H]
5. Therefore, the assignment of “distinctive marks” i.e.
registration numbers to motor vehicles (which includes the power
to reserve and allocate them, for a specific fee) is a distinct service
H
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 737

for which states or their authorities (such as the registering A
authorities, in this case) are entitled to charge a prescribed fee.
Rule 55A of the MP Rules is not therefore, in excess of the powers
conferred upon the state, by the Act or the Central Rules. [Para
39][761-E-F]
6. It is not correct to say that the State was not competent B
to make the legislation. The State of M.P. derived its powers to
frame the concerned rules, through the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act itself. The question, therefore, of repugnance as
properly understood, did not arise; rather it was a case whether
the state government, as one of the delegated authorities, was
empowered through Parliamentary law to frame the rule that it C
did. [Para 40][761-G-H; 762-A]
Offshore Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. Bangalore Development
Authority (2011) 3 SCC 139 : [2011] 1 SCR 453;
Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh v. State of M.P (1981)
4 SCC 471; Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union D
of India (2011) 8 SCC 274 : [2011] 8 SCR 680; D.K.
Trivedi & Sons v. State of Gujarat (1986) Suppl. SCC
20 : [1986] 1 SCR 479; Afzal Ullah v. State of U.P.
[1964] 4 SCR 991 – relied on.
Distt. Council of United Khasi and Jaintia Hills v. E
Sitimon Sawian (1971) 3 SCC 708 : [1972] 1 SCR 398;
Indian Medical Assn. v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC
179 : [2011] 6 SCR 599; Jantia Hill Truck Owners Assn.
v. Shailang Area Coal Dealer & Truck Owner Assn.
(2009) 8 SCC 492 : [2009] 10 SCR 536; T. Cajee v. U. F
Jormanik Siem [1961] 1 SCR 750; Surinder Singh v.
Central Government (1986) 4 SCC 667 : [1986] 3 SCR
946; Rohtak & Hissar District Electric Supply Co. Ltd.
v. State of UP AIR 1966 SC 1471 : [1966] 2 SCR 863;
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 222 : [2013] G
12 SCR 999; K. Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu
(1985) 2 SCC 116 : [1985] 2 SCR 1028 – referred to.

H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A Case Law Reference
[2011] 1 SCR 453 relied on Para 7
(1981) 4 SCC 471 relied on Para 9
[2011] 8 SCR 680 relied on Para 11
B [1972] 1 SCR 398 referred to Para 19
[2011] 6 SCR 599 referred to Para 20
[2009] 10 SCR 536 referred to Para 20
[1964] 4 SCR 991 relied on Para 34
C
[1966] 2 SCR 863 referred to Para 34
[2013] 12 SCR 999 referred to Para 34
[1985] 2 SCR 1028 referred to Para 34
[1986] 1 SCR 479 relied on Para 35
D
[1961] 1 SCR 750 referred to Para 37
[1986] 3 SCR 946 referred to Para 38
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7074
of 2008.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2008 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 2344 of 2004.
Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Arjun Garg,
Aakash Nandolia, Ankit Swarup, Neelmani Pant, Jawad Tariq,
Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Rukmini Bobde,
F Nachiketa Joshi, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv. (A.C.).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
G
1. This appeal challenges a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court which quashed Rule 55A of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994
(hereafter “the State Rules”) framed by the Madhya Pradesh State
(hereafter “the state”) and published by it. The respondent (hereafter
“the vehicle owner”) had approached the High Court, contending that
H the said rule was ultra vires the state’s power under the Motor Vehicles
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 739
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

Act, 1988 (hereafter “the Act”), and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, A
1989 (hereafter “the Central Rules”). The High Court accepted his
contentions.
2. The vehicle owner purchased the motorcycle in May, 2004 and
applied for its registration on 25-05-2004 before the concerned registering
authority, through the prescribed application in Form No. 20. By an order B
(of 27-05-2004), the registering authority rejected the application, stating
that the vehicle owner’s claim for allotment of registration number ‘MP-
KL-4646’ could not be accepted, as the petitioner had not paid the required
fee prescribed for allotment of that number. The motorcycle was allotted
another number (MP20-KL-5100) which the petitioner did not want. He
therefore, approached the High Court in writ proceedings, contending C
that allotment of a particular number on payment of a fee (provided in
Rule 55A) was contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of Section
41 and the powers conferred on the State Government to frame rules
under Section 65 of the Act of 1988. He challenged the amendment
incorporated in the State Rules of 1994 by a notification dated 15.02.2001. D
He also sought a direction to the registration authority that he should be
assigned the number 4646 for his motorcycle. Under Rule 55A, this
number was reserved by the State to be assigned by a separate
procedure. The Rules, particularly Rule 55A prescribed not only the
procedure but also a special fee for assigning such reserved numbers
(which included 4646, which the vehicle owner insisted should be allotted E
to him). He contended that Rule 55A, was ultra vires the provisions of
the Act.
3. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel for the State relied upon
the scheme of the Act, and highlighted that while Section 41(2)
undoubtedly conferred the power to prescribe rules and also a fee to F
allot registration numbers, yet Section 41(6) was specific in that even
while the Central Government was authorized to allot certain numbers
to the State, the further or onward registration or assignment of those
numbers as registration numbers was left to the State.
4. Learned counsel argued that the State Rules were framed by G
virtue of the powers conferred under section 65 of the Act, which
empowers the State to inter alia, make rules with regard to issue or
renewal of certificate of registration, as well as amounts to be charged
for such registration. It was also argued that under Section 211 of the
Act, the State is entitled to levy a fee with respect to applications submitted H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A for issuing certificates, licenses or registrations and as the State fixed
the procedure for allotment of registration mark by reservation exercising
powers under Section 211, such procedure is in accordance with the
law. It was argued by Mr. Mishra, that by virtue of Section 41 (6), the
registering authority can assign to any vehicle for display on it, a
distinguishing mark known as the registration mark. It is submitted that
B
in this instance, since Rule 55A merely empowers the registering authority
to assign a specific registration mark, on demand to the concerned person,
the power exercised is relatable to Section 41(6), and the High Court’s
conclusions are erroneous.
5. It was pointed out by Mr. Mishra that the responsibility of
C assigning registration mark to motor vehicles is that of the State
Government. He emphasized that Section 64 (d) of the Act empowers
the Central Government to “prescribe the manner and the form in
which the registration mark of the vehicles is to be displayed”. The
Central Government has in fact, specified the form and the manner of
D display of registration marks on motor vehicles, under Rules 50 and 51
of the Central Rules. The issue raised by the petitioner relates to allocation
of a particular registration series, which is within the exclusive domain
of the concerned registering authority of the State. The Central
Government is not concerned with the allocation of distinguished
registration marks.
E
6. Learned counsel argued that the powers of the central
government and the states were clearly delineated; no doubt, the Central
Government had exclusive domain over the allocation of particular
numbers or series of numbers to the states, and could prescribe the fee
to be paid when applications are made for registration. However, under
F Section 41(6), once a series of numbers (or alpha numeric series) is
allotted to a state, the procedure to be followed and the fee to be
prescribed for assigning the concerned numbers as registration of
individual vehicles is that of the state. The registering authority is none
other than a state designated official or agency.
G 7. Reliance was placed on Offshore Holdings (P.) Ltd. v.
Bangalore Development Authority 1 by Mr. Mishra, who drew the
attention of this court to observations that when two laws, one by the
Centre and the other by the state, are alleged to be in conflict (or repugnant
to each other) the court should not readily infer repugnancy, but should:
H 1 (2011) 3 SCC 139.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 741
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

“ignore an encroachment which is merely incidental in order A
to reconcile the provisions and harmoniously implement them.
If ultimately, the provisions of both the Acts can coexist without
conflict, then it is not expected of the courts to invalidate the
law in question.”
8. This court had also observed that the doctrine of supremacy of B
federal laws under Article 254 should:
“normally be resorted to only when the conflict is so patent
and irreconcilable that coexistence of the two laws is not
feasible. Such conflict must be an actual one and not a mere
seeming conflict between the entries in the two lists. While C
entries have to be construed liberally, their irreconcilability
and impossibility of coexistence should be patent.”
9. Mr. Mishra also relied on other decisions of this court, highlighting
that conflict of laws or repugnancy between state and central laws should
not be readily inferred, under the Constitution, but rather, the courts should D
first attempt at harmonizing the two sets of apparently conflicting norms.2
Counsel also relied on Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh v. State of
M.P3 and urged that the course adopted by the state to assign specific
registration numbers through a separate procedure, was in fact a result
of popular demand, since many people wanted such specific registration
numbers for numerological, astrological and religious reasons. He E
submitted that the state could have even resorted to its executive powers
without framing a rule, since the task of assigning numbers fell within its
domain, under the scheme of the Act.
10. It was argued that a reading of Section 211 along with Section
65(2)(d) and (k) clearly indicates that the State Government can make F
rules with regard to the subjects on which it is specifically empowered
to do so. As far as the registration of motor vehicles and prescribing
fees for registration are concerned, the power is of the State Government
to prescribe rules for providing the procedure for assigning or renewing
registration numbers, through the registering authority. Stressing that G
Section 211 was erroneously interpreted by the High Court, learned

2 Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 2 SCC 670]; Union of India v.
Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers’ College [(2002) 8 SCC 228] and Girnar Traders
v State of Maharasthra [(2011) 3 SCC 1].
3 (1981) 4 SCC 471.
H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A counsel submitted that it clearly empowered the state to prescribe a fee
not otherwise provided, in respect of a service provided by it. Counsel
argued that the state provided a separate service, i.e. allocating specific
desired numbers to vehicle owners, for which it could well claim a fee,
over and above the registration fee prescribed by the Central Government,
under Section 41(2).
B
11. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the generality of the
provisions of Section 65(1) and the deployment of the expression “without
prejudice to the generality of provisions of sub-section (1)” in Section
65 (2), together with Section 65(2)(p) were meant to clothe the state
government with the power to impose a fee for the kind of services
C involved in the present dispute. He relied on the judgment in Academy
of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India 4 where this court had
interpreted a pari materia expression (“in particular and without the
generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or
any of the following matters” 5). This court had observed, in that
D judgment, as follows:
“Statutes delegating the power to make rules follow a standard
pattern. The relevant section would first contain a provision
granting the power to make rules to the delegate in general
terms, by using the words `to carry out the provisions of this
E Act’ or `to carry out the purposes of this Act’. This is usually
followed by another sub-section enumerating the matters/areas
in regard to which specific power is delegated by using the
words `in particular and without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any
of the following matters.” Interpreting such provisions, this
F Court in a number of decisions has held that where power is
conferred to make subordinate legislation in general terms,
the subsequent particularization of the matters/topics has to
be construed as merely illustrative and not limiting the scope
of the general power. Consequently, even if the specific
G enumerated topics in section 23 (1A) may not empower the
Central Government to make the impugned rule (Rule 44-I),
making of the Rule can be justified with reference to the
general power conferred on the central government under
4 (2011) 8 SCC 274.
H 5 Section 2 (1), The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 743
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

section 23 (1), provided the rule does not travel beyond the A
scope of the Act.”
12. Service of notice of the present proceedings was complete,
upon the respondent vehicle owner. He has however chosen to remain
absent. Having regard to the public importance of issues involved in the
present case, Mr. Manoj Swaroop, learned senior counsel, was asked to B
assist this court as amicus curiae which he did, with much industry and
ardor. The amicus urged this court not to disturb or interfere with the
judgment under appeal. He outlined the scheme of the Act, and underlined
Sections 41(1), (2), (3), (6) and (the now deleted6 s. 41(13)), and contended
that there was a clear demarcation of powers of the state and central
governments. Highlighting the delineation of rule making powers under C
Section 64 (by the central government) and under Section 65 (by the
state government) it was submitted that the subject of prescription of
fee for allotment of registration was exhausted; the central government
had exclusive authority to prescribe the particulars required, the form to
be used for applying7 and the form of registration certificates for various D
kinds of vehicles8. Thus, the state had no power to prescribe fees, much
less prescribe by-rules for a procedure for assigning specific numbers to
various applicants. It was argued that even the power of allocation of a
sequence of numbers to individual states was reserved to the central
government alone. These ruled out prescription of any further fee, or
creation of a separate procedure for assigning specific numbers, and E
charging higher amounts from desirous applicants/ vehicle owners.
13. Mr. Swaroop argued that Section 211 states that if by any
rule, the Central or the State Government is empowered to make under
the Motor Vehicles Act, then the Central Government or the State
Governments, notwithstanding the absence of any express provision, F
are empowered to provide for levy of such fees in respect of various
items like applications, applications for amendment to the issue of
certificates and other matters provided therein. It was argued that to
levy a fee under Section 211, a provision should exist empowering the
Central Government or the State Government to make such a rule. Such G
power cannot be exercised in regard to matters for which the Act does
not give power to the State Government to make Rules. Since the power
to prescribe a fee for registration of a motor vehicle is vested in the
6 By virtue of amendment through Act 32 of 2019, by Parliament.
7 Form 20, attached to the Central Rules.
8 Form 23 and 23A, attached to the Central Rules.
H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A Central Government under Section 41(2), the power to levy a fee under
section 211 can be exercised by the State Government only if it is
empowered under the Act to prescribe fees for the purpose of registration
of a motor vehicle. The Act does not empower the State Government to
levy fees for registration of a vehicle; therefore, no fees can be prescribed
for allotment of a registration mark for a motor vehicle, exercising powers
B
under Section 211. It was submitted that the so called right of assigning
the registration number is only the last step in the process of allotment,
for which the Central Government levies a fee under Section 41(2).
14. Mr. Swaroop argued that the state is conferred with power
only to make rules providing the procedure for issue or renewal of
C certificate or recovery of amount or amounts under sub-section (13) of
Section 14 i.e., to prescribe the amount to be paid for delay on the part
of the owner to file an application for registration of motor vehicle under
sub-section (1) of Section 41 or under sub-section (8) of Section 41 for
renewal of motor vehicles registration. These provisions do not empower
D the state to make a rule fixing the fee to be charged for registration of a
motor vehicle. It is, therefore, clear that under the Act, the power to
prescribe a fee for registration of motor vehicles is only conferred on
the Central Government, and in exercise of the such power, the Central
Government has already fixed the fee under Rule 81 of the Central
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
E
15. Next, reliance was also placed on Sections 47(7), 49(4) and
50(5) of the Act. The amicus contended that these provisions specifically
conferred powers upon the state to prescribe amounts as fee for transfer
of registration of vehicles on their removal from one state to another; for
obtaining no objection certificate from the registering authority, and upon
F transfer of ownership. He therefore, urged that the splitting up of an
indivisible process, by drawing a distinction between “allotment” of
numbers by the Centre and their onward assignment by the state
registering authority and the charging of a separate fee for the latter,
was impermissible. The absence of specific provisions enabling the state
G to prescribe amounts as fees, for particular enumerated services, showed
Parliamentary intent to exclude the state from levying a fee for “assigning”
a registered number, for an act for which the Central government had
prescribed a fee under Section 41(2). Counsel also urged that the
provision of Section 41(2) had the effect of excluding the power of
prescribing any fee in relation to registration of vehicles, including the
H state’s powers under Section 65 and 211.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 745
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

16. Mr. Swaroop sought to contrast the provisions of the now A
repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, with the Act. He contended that
Section 41(2) manifested Parliamentary intent to exclude state power in
respect of a subject matter, where such power had previously existed.
He highlighted that under the old law, individual states were free to
prescribe fees according to varying standards. The Act however, was
B
an improvement, because a single power of one fee, could be prescribed
under Section 41(2).
17. The amicus lastly relied on a notification issued by the Central
Government9 which had assigned specified groups of letters “for use
as registration mark for each State and Union Territory to be
followed by the code number of the Registering Authority to be C
allotted by the State Government or, as the case may be the
Administrator, not exceeding four figures, to be used as registration
mark.” It was urged that the notification, after setting out in tabular
form, the letters assigned to various states and union territories, further
directed that whenever the four figures referred to earlier “reached D
9999, the next series shall begin with the alphabet ‘A’ followed by
not more than four figures and thereafter with alphabet ‘B’ followed
by not more than four figures and so on…”
18. Counsel asserted that this exercise exhaustively resulted in
allotment of letters and numbers to the concerned states, which then E
merely had to follow a procedure of assigning them, on the basis of a
pre-determined sequence. Under no circumstances could the state or
the registering authority pick out a few or some numbers for special
assignment, and charge a separate, higher fee.
19. Learned counsel relied on Distt. Council of United Khasi F
and Jaintia Hills v. Sitimon Sawian10 where, this court construed the
term “allot” and held that
“The word “allot” according to standard dictionaries means,
distribute by lot, or in such a way that the recipients have no
choice; to assign as a lot or apportion to; and the word G
“allotment” means, apportioning; the action of allotting; share
allotted to one; small portion of land let out for cultivation.”

9 S.O. 444(E) dated 12 June, 1989.
10 (1971) 3 SCC 708 at p. 712.
H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A 20. It was submitted that allotment of a registration, and prescribing
a fee, for that purpose, under Section 41(2) similarly enfolds within the
term, the entire process, including the kind of application, payment of
fee, the form to be used, etc. All these are within the domain of the
Central Government; the state cannot segregate the last limb and seek
to recover a fee for “assigning” the actual number to individuals. Learned
B
counsel also relied on the judgment in Indian Medical Assn. v. Union
of India11, where it was held that
“66. The word “allot”, in its verb form, is defined by Concise
Oxford Dictionary [ 8th Edn., Oxford University Press (1990)]
to include the meaning of the act to give or apportion to,
C distribute officially to. Allotment is what results from such an
act i.e. an apportionment. The word “reserve” is defined to
also include the meaning of “order to be specifically retained
or allocated for a particular person”, and the word
“reservation” is the act or an instance of reserving or being
D reserved. The word “allocate” is defined to include the
meanings of an act to assign or devote something for a purpose
or to a person.”
Mr. Swaroop lastly relied on the decision of this court in Jantia
Hill Truck Owners Assn. v. Shailang Area Coal Dealer & Truck
E Owner Assn. 12
21. The learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Vikramjit
Banerjee, appearing for the Union, supported the state’s position. He
urged that under Section 39 of the Act, every motor vehicle plying on
roads should be registered. Section 40 of the Act, prescribes that such
F registration is made by the concerned registering authority of the State
Government under whose jurisdiction the owner of the vehicle resides
or has a place of business. It is the duty of the concerned registering
authority of the State Government to assign a registration mark to the
vehicle as per Section 41(6) of the Act. Every application for registration
of motor vehicles should be accompanied with the fees as specified by
G the Central Government. The Central Government has already specified
fees for registration of vehicles under Rule 81 of the Central Rules.
22. The ASG urged that Section 64(d) of the Act empowers the
Central Government to prescribe the manner and the form in which the
11 (2011) 7 SCC 179 at p. 217.
H 12 (2009) 8 SCC 492 at p. 500.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 747
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

registration mark of the vehicles is to be displayed. Accordingly, the A
Central Government has specified the form and the manner of display
of registration marks on the motor vehicles under Rules 50 and 51 of the
Central Rules. The issue in this case, i.e. relating to the allocation of a
particular registration number concerns the registering authority of the
State Government, and not the Union. It was argued that under Section
B
65 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Governments are vested
with the power to frame rules on issues pertaining to registration of
motor vehicles, which are not covered under Section 64 of the Act.
Under 65(2)(b) of the Act, the appointment, functions and jurisdiction of
registering and other prescribed authorities fall under the purview of the
State Government. Moreover, under Section 65(2)(b) of the Act, the C
States are vested with power to make rules on any other matter relating
to registration of motor vehicles, which need to be specified. Allocation
of a registration mark is the responsibility of the concerned State
Government. The States are competent to make rules for this purpose.
Provisions of the Act D
23. The relevant provisions of the Act are reproduced below:
“39. Necessity for registration.—No person shall drive any
motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause
or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in
any other place unless the vehicle is registered in E
accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of
registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or
cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark
displayed in the prescribed manner:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor F
vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions
as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
40. Registration, where to be made. — Subject to the
provisions of section 42, section 43 and section 60, every
owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be G
registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction
he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle
is normally kept.
41. Registration, how to be made. — (1) An application by
or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A 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 behalf of all the owners and such
B
applicant shall be deemed to be the owner of the motor
vehicle for the purposes of this Act.
(2) An application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be
accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by the
Central Government.
C
(3) The registering authority shall issue to the owner of a
motor vehicle registered by it a certificate of registration
in such form and containing such particulars and
information and in such manner as may be prescribed by
the Central Government.
D
(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
E 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.
F
(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
G 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.
*****
H
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 749
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

64. Power of Central Government to make rules. — The A
Central Government may make rules to provide for all or any
of the following matters, namely:
(a) the period within which and the form in which an
application shall be made and the documents, particulars and
information it shall accompany under sub-section (1) of B
section 41;
(b) the form in which the certificate of registration shall be
made and the particulars and information it shall contain
and the manner in which it shall be issued under sub-section
(3) of section 41; C
(c) the form and manner in which the particulars of the
certificate of registration shall be entered in the records of
the registering authority under sub-section (5) of section 41;
(d) the manner in which and the form in which the registration
mark, the letters and figures and other particulars referred D
to in sub-section (6) of section 41 shall be displayed and
shown; 1. Ins. by Act 54 of 1994, s. 19 (w.e.f. 14-11-1994).
(e) the period within which and the form in which the
application shall be made and the particulars and information
it shall contain under sub-section (8) of section 41; E
(f) the form in which the application referred to in sub-section
(14) of section 41 shall be made, the particulars and
information it shall contain and the fee to be charged;
(g) the form in which the period within which the application
F
referred to in sub-section (1) of section 47 shall be made and
the particulars it shall contain;
(h) the form in which and the manner in which the application
for “No Objection Certificate” shall be made under sub-
section (1) of section 48 and the form of receipt to be issued
under sub-section (2) of section 48; G

(i) the matters that are to be complied with by an applicant
before no objection certificate may be issued under section
48;

H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A (j) the form in which the intimation of change of address shall
be made under sub-section (1) of section 49 and the
documents to be submitted along with the application;
(k) the form in which and the manner in which the intimation
of transfer of ownership shall be made under sub-section (1)
B of section 50 or under sub-section (2) of section 50 and the
document to be submitted along with the application;
(l) the form in which the application under sub-section (2) or
sub-section (3) of section 51 shall be made;
(m) the form in which the certificate of fitness shall be issued
C under sub-section (1) of section 56 and the particulars and
information it shall contain;
(n) the period for which the certificate of fitness granted or
renewed under section 56 shall be effective;

D (o) the fees to be charged for the issue or renewal or alteration
of certificates of registration, for making an entry regarding
transfer of ownership on a certificate of registration, for
making or cancelling an endorsement in respect of agreement
of hire-purchase or lease or hypothecation on a certificate
of registration, for certificates of fitness for registration marks,
E and for the examination or inspection of motor vehicles, and
the refund of such fees.
(p) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed by
the Central Government.
65. Power of State Government to make rules. — (1) A State
F
Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into
effect the provisions of this Chapter other than the matters
specified in section 64.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power,
such rules may provide for—
G
(a) the conduct and hearing of appeals that may be
preferred under this Chapter (the fees to be paid in respect
of such appeals and the refund of such fees);
(b) the appointment, functions and jurisdiction of
H registering and other prescribed authorities;
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 751
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

(c) the exemption of road-rollers, graders and other A
vehicles designed and used solely for the construction,
repair and cleaning of roads from all or any of the
provisions of this Chapter and the rules made thereunder
and the conditions governing such exemption;
(d) the issue or renewal of certificates of registration and B
fitness and duplicates of such certificates to replace the
certificates lost, destroyed or mutilated;
(e) the production of certificates of registration before the
registering authority for the revision of entries therein of
particulars relating to the gross vehicle weight; C
(f) the temporary registration of motor vehicles, and the
issue of temporary certificate of registration and marks;
(g) the manner in which the particulars referred to in sub-
section (2) of section 58 and other prescribed particulars
shall be exhibited; D
(h) the exemption of prescribed persons or prescribed
classes of persons from payment of all or any portion of
the fees payable under this Chapter;
(i) the forms, other than those prescribed by the Central
E
Government, to be used for the purpose of this Chapter;
(j) the communication between registering authorities of
particulars of certificates of registration and by owners
of vehicles registered outside the State of particulars of
such vehicles and of their registration;
F
(k) the amount or amounts under sub-section (13) of section
41 or sub-section (7) of section 47 or sub-section (4) of
section 49 or sub-section (5) of section 50;
(l) the extension of the validity of certificates of fitness
pending consideration of applications for their renewal; G
(m) the exemption from the provisions of this Chapter, and
the conditions and fees for exemption, of motor vehicles
in the possession of dealers;
(n) the form in which and the period within which the return
under section 62 shall be sent; H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A (o) the manner in which the State Register of Motor Vehicles
shall be maintained under section 63;
(p) any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed.”

B **************
211. Power to levy fee. — Any rule which the Central
Government or the State Government is empowered to make
under this Act may, notwithstanding the absence of any
express provision to that effect, provide for the levy of such
C fees in respect of applications, amendment of documents, issue
of certificates, licences, permits, tests, endorsements, badges,
plates, countersignatures, authorisation, supply of statistics
or copies of documents or orders and for any other purpose
or matter involving the rendering of any service by the officers
or authorities under this Act or any rule made thereunder as
D may be considered necessary:
Provided that the Government may, if it considers
necessary so to do, in the public interest, by general or special
order, exempt any class of persons from the payment of any
such fee either in part or in full.”
E
Analysis and Conclusions
24. As is evident from the relevant extracts of the Act, Section 39
obliges every vehicle owner to secure a registration; every owner has to
register his vehicle by approaching the registering authority (designated
by the State by virtue of Section 65(2)(b)13 of the Act).
F
25. Section 41(1), the next in sequence, enables the Central
Government to prescribe the form for application for such registration.
There are two provisos to this; the second proviso added in 2019 states
that in case of a new motor vehicle, the application for registration in
that State shall be made by the dealer of such motor vehicle, if the new
G
13
Section 65(2)(b) of the Act reads as follows:
(2) without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide
for:
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(b) the appointment, functions and jurisdiction of registering and other prescribed
H authorities.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 753
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

motor vehicle is registered in the same State. By Section 41(2), the A
application for registration has to be accompanied by “such fee as may
be prescribed by the Central Government.” By Section 41(3), the
registering authority has to issue the certificate of registration in the
name of the owner in such form containing the relevant particulars as
prescribed by the Central Government.
B
26. Section 41(6) the interplay of which, with Section 41(2), is
directly in issue – enacts that the registering authority “shall assign to
the vehicle for display thereon a distinguishing 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”. Now, this provision is divided into two C
parts. Although the duty of the registering authority to assign the
“distinguishing mark” has been enacted as the first event, in reality, in
sequence, the allotment of groups of letters followed by such letters and
figures (which find mention in the latter part of the provision), that are
allotted to the State by the Central Government would be an event that D
occurs prior to the assignment of such distinguishing mark and number.
The notification of 12.06.1989 issued by the Central Government in
exercise of this power to allocate numbers under Section 41(6) has
allocated distinguished groups of letters to each individual State and UT.
According to the notification, this group of letters is to be followed by
the code number of the registering authority “to be allocated by the E
State Government or the Administrator of the UT”. The notification,
after setting out the groups of letters, goes on to state that where four
figures referred to earlier in it, (i.e. the notification) reaches 9999, the
next series shall begin with the alphabet A followed by not more than
four figures and thereafter with alphabet B, and so on. This notification F
from its facial reading clothes the state government or the UT
administration, with the distinct task of allotting the code number and
thereafter assigning the numerics (the four numbers in question).
27. The reasoning of the High Court, in its impugned judgment is
that the field of prescribing the fee for an application for registration has G
been exclusively conferred upon the Union Government, thus excluding
from its sweep any State power to claim any manner of fee or amount
as part of that task. The amicus characterized the impugned Rule 55A
as segregating and separating the last step in one indivisible process of
allotment of a registration mark.
H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A 28. The High Court, in addition, also concluded that Section 211
was of no consequence and could not be pressed into service by the
State Government inasmuch as the field of charging fees for allotment
of registration numbers was fully occupied by Section 41(2). It also held
that by the same logic, the state had no power to make rules under
Section 65(2) to charge any fee in this regard. The amicus had made
B
reference to Section 65(2)(k) which explicitly talks of the power of the
State to prescribe the amount or amounts payable under Section 41(13);
Section 47(7), Section 49(4) or Section 50(5). Each of these provisions
was also relied upon to state that whenever Parliament intended to
empower the State Government to charge fee or amounts, it did so
C expressly and that the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius
applied in the circumstances.
29. This Court is of the opinion that the High Court, in its impugned
judgement, lost sight of the true import of Section 211. The existence of
specific provisions empowering the State (such as Sections 41(13), 47(7),
D 49(4) and 50(5)), means that the power of the State to claim or charge
amounts is specifically recognized by express provisions. Further, there
are certain services and functions for which the State is empowered to
levy fees. It is precisely to cover these contingencies, i.e. where the
service is rendered or some function performed, that the State is
empowered by a residual provision (much like the Central Government
E with which it shares the power concurrently) to levy fees. In this respect,
it would be useful to note that Section 211 is cast in wide terms and that
any rule which the Central Government or the State Government is
empowered to make under this Act may, notwithstanding the absence
of any express provision to that effect, provide for the levy of such
F fees in respect of applications, amendment of documents, issue of
certificates, licences, permits, tests, endorsements, badges, plates,
countersignatures, authorisation, supply of statistics or copies of
documents or orders and for any other purpose or matter involving
the rendering of any service. Clearly, therefore, the Parliament intended
that contingencies not covered by a specific power to levy fees or amounts,
G which entailed some activity on the part of the State, including rendering
of any service could be legitimately charged or subjected to the levy of
fee or amounts.
30. The assignment of numbers by the registering authority, as
seen earlier, through an official/agency or department notified by the
H
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 755
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

State Government, cannot be seen as a mere step – albeit at the fag-end A
of the registration allotment process. In fact, though it is the culmination
of the allotment process, it is nevertheless an important step. The state,
in the opinion of this Court, is entitled to indicate its choice or manner of
assigning by prescribing a particular set of procedures for the assignment
of numbers. Thus, for instance, the assignment of the concerned “code”
B
- to the individual registering authorities followed by the assignment of
numerics may follow a predetermined pattern which may be district
wise, state government department wise (in the case of publicly owned
vehicles), different sequences for buses and heavy vehicles and so on.
If such a predetermined choice can be made by prescribing the mode of
assignment, it is both regulatory and at the same time indicative of State C
policy. Per se, the Court cannot brush aside the element of service which
may be involved – especially if the general public or a sub-section of it,
wishes to choose particular numbers for various considerations. Such
“fancy” numbers or “auspicious” numbers may well therefore have to
be set apart having regard to the peculiar socio-cultural needs of the
D
people of the state. It is in such an event that the availability of such
numbers and their reservation as a choice and the power of their
assignment assumes importance. In the impugned Rule 55A14 in the
14
55A. Allotment of registration mark. - (1) On receipt of an application
made in writing by any person to the registering authority for reservation of E
registration mark, the registering authority shall reserve the registration
mark in the following manner:-
(a) Registration marks from 1 to 9 in any series prevalent within the
jurisdiction of Registering Authority, shall be reserved on payment of fee of
Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) for each registration mark.
(b) For reservation of registration mark from number 10 to 100 in any series
F
prevalent within the jurisdiction of the Registering Authority, on payment of
fee of Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand) for each registration mark.
(c) For reservation of registration mark number, 101, 111, 123, 200, 202,
222, 234, 300, 303, 333, 345, 400, 404, 444, 456, 500, 505, 555, 567, 600,
606, 678, 700, 707, 777, 786, 789, 800, 808, 888, 900, 909, 999, 1000, 1001,
1010, 1111, 1112, 1212, 1213, 1221, 1234, 1313, 1314, 1331, 1414, 1415,
G
1515, 1516, 1616, 1617, 1661, 1717, 1718, 1771, 1818, 1819, 1881, 1919,
1929, 1991, 2000, 2002, 2020, 2021, 2112, 2121, 2122, 2222, 2223, 2323,
2324, 2332, 2345, 2424, 2425, 2442, 2525, 2526, 2552, 2626, 2627, 2662,
2727, 2728, 2772, 2828, 2829, 2882, 2929, 2930, 2992, 3000, 3003, 3030,
3113, 3131, 3132, 3223, 3232, 3233, 3333, 3334, 3434, 3435, 3443, 3456,
3535, 3536, 3553, 3636, 3637, 3663, 3737, 3738, 3773, 3838, 3839, 3883,
H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A present instance, introduced in 2001 through amendment by the State of
M.P., prescribes four different fees – 15000/- for the registration marks
3939, 3940, 3994, 4000, 4004, 4040, 4041, 4114, 4141, 4142, 4224, 4242,
4243, 4334, 4343, 4344, 4444, 4445, 4545, 4546, 4554, 4567, 4646, 4647,
4664, 4747, 4748, 4774, 4848, 4849, 4884, 4949, 4950, 4994, 5000, 5005,
B 5050, 5051, 5115, 5151, 5152, 5225, 5252, 5253, 5335, 5353, 5354, 5445,
5454, 5455, 5555, 5556, 5656, 5657, 5665, 5678, 5757, 5758, 5775, 5858,
5859, 5885, 5959, 5960, 5995, 6000, 6006, 6060, 6061, 6116, 6161, 6162,
6226, 6262, 6263, 6336, 6363, 6364, 6446, 6464, 6465, 6558, 6565, 6666,
6667, 6767, 6768, 6776, 6789, 6869, 6886, 6969, 6970, 6996, 7000, 7007,
7070, 7071, 7117, 7171, 7172, 7227, 7272, 7273, 7337, 7373, 7374, 7447,
7474, 7475, 7557, 7575, 7576, 7667, 7676, 7677, 7777, 7778, 7878, 7887,
C
7979, 7980, 7997, 8000, 8008, 8080, 8081, 8181, 8182, 8228, 8282, 8283,
8338, 8383, 8384, 8448, 8484, 8558, 8585, 8586, 8668, 8686, 8687, 8778,
8787, 8788, 8888, 8889, 8989, 8998, 9(X)0, 9009, 9090, 9091, 9119, 9191,
9192, 9229, 9292, 9293, 9339, 9393, 9394, 9449, 9494, 9495, 9559, 9595,
9596, 9669, 9696, 9697, 9779, 9797, 9798, 9889, 9898, 9899, 9999, on
payment of fee of Rupees 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) for each registration
D
mark.
(d) For reservation of any other number not specified in subclauses (a), (b)
and (c) of this rule within thousand numbers from the last number assigned in
serial order on payment of a fee of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) for each
registration mark.
(2) The Registering Authority while reserving the registration mark on the
E application of any person shall strictly adhere to the following guidelines :-
(a) The Registering Authority shall reserve the registration mark on the basis
of ‘first come first served’ principle.
(b) If there is more than one application on a day for particular registration
mark as specified above the reservation of registration mark shall be done in
accordance with the serial number on the cash receipt regarding payment of
F the amount of fee.
(c) The registration mark reserved shall be allotted on production of the
vehicle alongwith the application in Form-20 of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989 and when the vehicle is found complying with the provisions of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules made thereunder for registration
of a motor, vehicle.
G (d) The reservation of registration mark shall stand automatically cancelled
if the vehicle is not produced for allotment of registration number within
three months from the date of reservation of registration mark.
(e) The amount of the fee paid for reservation of registration mark shall not be
refundable.
(f) The registration mark cancelled under clause (d) can be re-reserved by
H the Registering Authority in accordance with the above procedure.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 757
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

1 to 9 in any series prevalent within the jurisdiction of the registering A
authority; and 12000/- for reservation of marks from 10 to 100 in any
series within the jurisdiction of the registering authority. For reservation
of large series of numbers indicated in Rule 55A(c), 10000/- and 2000/
- for reservation of any other number or numbers within 1000 from the
last number assigned in the serial order.
B
31. In addition to charging such fees, the registering authority is
enjoined by Rule 55A(2) to follow the principle of first-come-first-serve
in reserving particular numbers; and to allot the registration mark reserved
upon production of the vehicle along with the application in Form-20 (of
the Central Rules), provided the vehicle is compliant with the provisions
of the Act and Rules. By Rule 55A(d), the reservation of the mark C
would be cancelled if the vehicle is not produced for allotment within
three months from the date of allotment. Obviously, this is meant to
avoid abuse of the reservation process by trafficking in numbers, by
providing finite time within which such numbers can be used.
D
32. Quite like in the case of fees for assignment of particular
numbers, certain other services too are contemplated under the Act.
Section 56(1)15 directs that no transport vehicle would be deemed to be
validly registered unless it carries a certificate of fitness. Such fitness
certificate is to be issued by authorized testing stations [by Section 56(2)].
Section 43 enables the owner of a motor vehicle to apply to any registering E
authority or other authority which may be prescribed by the State
Government to have the vehicle temporarily registered. This provision

15
56. Re-assignment of registration number under certain condition. - (1)
State Government may, by general or special order, direct all Registering
Authority of the State, to reassign the new number under the Act, in place of
F
number allotted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (No. 4 of 1939) in respect
of all or any class of vehicles and also prescribe the manner and condition
thereof, and the provision of sub-section (6) of Section 41 of the Act shall
apply in this respect.
(2) State Government while issuing order under sub-rule (1), shall provide a
reasonable time which shall not be less than six months within which the G
owner of such vehicle shall obtain new number.
(3) No fee shall be charged for the assignment of new number under sub-rule
(1), if the owner applies within the prescribed time. Where the application is
received after the expiry of prescribed period, a late fee of Rs. 100/- shall be
payable. H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A contains a non-obstante clause. Various provisions of the Act deal with
orders of higher authorities and appellate authorities. Implicit with this is
the power to issue copies of such decisions. Further, in cases where
individuals or parties interested seek to duplicate or acquire extra copies
of such orders, a separate category of service is provided. Likewise,
wherever duplicates of documents such as Registration Certificates etc.
B
are issued, necessarily, a service is performed. Rule 62 of the M.P.
Rules of 1994 provided for fees to be charged in respect of various such
services (temporary registration or extension thereof in different classes
of vehicles); copies of miscellaneous applications, duplicate certificate
of fitness for different classes of vehicles and so on. An overall reading
C of the M.P. Rules and the Act therefore clearly establishes that besides
the express authorization to levy fees or collect amounts, both the Central
Government and the State Government are empowered – in fact duty
bound to extend certain services in the performance of such duties.
Both these bodies, i.e. the Central and State Governments would
therefore, be acting within their authority to charge or levy fees.
D
33. If there are any further doubts on this issue, the generality of
the power under Section 65(1) to frame rules, in the opinion of this Court
is sufficient along with Section 211, to conclude that the State Government
has the authority to prescribe a fee for reserving certain numbers or
E distinguishing marks to be assigned as registration numbers. It has not
been shown how the setting apart of or reservation of some numbers –
here, a fraction of the large potential batch of numbers which the
registering authority can otherwise assign to vehicles, is per se arbitrary
or unreasonable. Neither were any such arguments urged before this
Court.
F
34. This Court has in the past observed that whenever a State
confers rule making power or empowers delegated legislation, i.e. and
where or wherever the statute first lays out a general provision authorizing
subordinate legislation or the framing of separate legislation to carry out
the purposes of that Act, and uses the expression “in particular and
G without generality of the foregoing powers”, followed by another
delegation which enumerates specific powers preceded by expressions
such as “in particular and without the generality of the foregoing
powers,” the particularization is only illustrative and does not subsume
the general power. The State had relied upon the decision in Academy
H
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 759
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

of Nutrition (supra) which was to that effect. There are other decisions A
as well on this issue.16
35. This court has, in the past, held that when a central enactment
clothes the state with the power, or tasks it to do a thing such as grant of
lease of minor minerals, an implicit power to charge lease rent or royalty
must be read into the state’s power. In D.K. Trivedi & Sons v. State of B
Gujarat, the court held:17
“40. the grant of a mining lease would thus provide for the
consideration for such grant in the shape of surface rent,
dead rent and royalty. The power to make rules for regulating
the grant of such leases would, therefore, include the power C
to fix the consideration payable by the lessee to the lessor in
the shape of ordinary rent or surface rent, dead rent and
royalty. If this were not so, it would lead to the absurd result
that when the government grants a mining lease, it is granted
gratis to a person who wants to extract minerals and profit
D
from them. Rules for regulating the grant of mining leases
cannot be confined merely to rules providing for the form in
which applications for such leases are to be made, the factors
to be taken into account in granting or refusing such
applications and other cognate matters. Such rules must
necessarily include provisions with respect to the consideration E
for the grant. Under Section 15(1), therefore, the State
Governments have the power to make rules providing for
payment of surface rent, dead rent and royalty by the lessee
to the government.”
F
16
See Afzal Ullah v. State of U.P. (1964) 4 SCR 991 which held that:
“It is now well settled that the specific provisions such as are contained in the
several clauses of Section 298(2) are merely illustrative and they cannot be read as
restrictive of the generality of powers prescribed by Section 298(1) (vide King
Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji (AIR 1945 PC 156] ). If the powers specified by Section
G
298(1) are very wide and they take in within their scope bye-laws like the ones with
which we are concerned in the present appeal, it cannot be said that the powers
enumerated under Section 298(2) control the general words used by Section 298(1).”
Refer also: Rohtak & Hissar District Electric Supply Co Ltd v State of UP 1966 (2) SCR
863; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and (2014) 3
SCC 222; K. Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1985) 2 SCC 116.
17
(1986) Supp. SCC 20, at p. 54. H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A 36. In Jaintia Hill Truck Owners Assn18, this court had pertinently
observed in the context of services rendered by weighment, through
third party, agencies, where the state enabled charging of fee, that:
“28. Where the State or the State-controlled agencies render
services for the purpose of effectuation of the provisions of a
B Central Act, it, in our opinion, is entitled to charge a
reasonable amount in respect thereof. We may, in this behalf,
refer to a decision of this Court in T. Cajee v. U. Jormanik
Siem [AIR 1961 SC 276 : (1961) 1 SCR 750]. The question
which arose for consideration therein was as to whether in
absence of any law regulating the appointment and succession
C
of chiefs and headmen, a notice issued to the respondent
therein to show cause as to why he should not be removed
from his office, was valid.”
37. The decision cited in Jaintia Hill (supra) – i.e., T. Cajee v
U. Jormanik Siem19 considered the validity of appointment of a village
D
headman by an autonomous district council, under provisions of the Sixth
Schedule to the Constitution of India. The High Court upheld the argument
that a conferment of legislative power (conferred upon the District
Council) if not exercised, did not empower the council to issue appointment
in the absence of rules. This court disapproved the High Court’s reasoning
E and held that:
“With respect, it seems to us that the High Court has read far
more into Para 3(1)(g) than is justified by its language. Para
3(1) is in fact something like a legislative list and enumerates
the subjects on which the District Council is competent to
F make laws. Under Para 3(1)(g) it has power to make laws
with respect to the appointment or succession of Chiefs or
Headmen and this would naturally include the power to
remove them. But it does not follow from this that the
appointment or removal of a Chief is a legislative act or that
no appointment or removal can be made without there being
G first a law to that effect. The High Court also seems to have
thought that as there was no provision in the Sixth Schedule
in terms of Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution, the
administrative power of the District Council would not extend
18
Supra, fn. 12.
H 19
1961 (1) SCR 750.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. 761
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

to the subjects enumerated in Para 3(1). Now Para 2(4) A
provides that the administration of an autonomous district
shall vest in the District Council and this in our opinion is
comprehensive enough to include all such executive powers
as are necessary to be exercised for the purposes of the
administration of the district…”
B
38. The other decision, cited in Jaintia Hill (supra), i.e., Surinder
Singh v. Central Government20 states the proposition in the following
terms:
“Where a statute confers powers on an authority to do certain
acts or exercise power in respect of certain matters, subject C
to rules, the exercise of power conferred by the statute does
not depend on the existence of rules unless the statute
expressly provides for the same. In other words framing of
the rules is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the
power expressly and unconditionally conferred by the statute.
The expression ‘subject to the rules’ only means, in accordance D
with the rules, if any. If rules are framed, the powers so
conferred on authority could be exercised in accordance with
these rules. But if no rules are framed there is no void and the
authority is not precluded from exercising the power conferred
by the statute.” E
39. This court therefore, holds that the assignment of “distinctive
marks” i.e. registration numbers to motor vehicles (which includes the
power to reserve and allocate them, for a specific fee) is a distinct service
for which states or their authorities (such as the registering authorities,
in this case) are entitled to charge a prescribed fee. Rule 55A of the MP F
Rules is not therefore, in excess of the powers conferred upon the state,
by the Act or the Central Rules.
40. This court notices that the impugned judgment proceeded on
the assumption that the state was not competent to make the legislation.
The use of that expression, at best can be characterized as misconceived. G
In the present case, the state of M.P. derived its powers to frame the
concerned rules, through the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act itself.
The question, therefore, of repugnance as properly understood, did not
arise; rather it was a case whether the state government, as one of the
delegated authorities, was empowered through Parliamentary law to
20
(1986) 4 SCC 667. H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.

A frame the rule that it did. At best, the issue that arose was whether the
offending rule (Rule 55A) was ultra vires the Act or the Central Rules.
In the opinion of this court, the impugned rule was within the ambit of
the powers delegated to the state, and directly related to performance of
its functions under Section 41(6), for which it could legitimately claim a
fee, as was done through Rule 55A.
B
41. Before parting with this judgment, the court records its gratitude
to Mr. Manoj Swaroop, Senior Advocate for acting as amicus and ably
marshalling all arguments that could be mustered to assist this court.
42. The appeal has to succeed, in view of the above reasoning.
C The impugned judgment is therefore set aside. The appeal is accordingly
allowed, but without an order as to costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H