JUDGMENT : Narasimham, J. - Petitioner No. 2 is the owner of Bus No. O.R.C. 26 Cuttack and a member of Cuttack Motor Association. Petitioner No. 1 is the Secretary of that' Association. Some time in March, 1954 Petitioner No. 2 applied to the Superintendent of Police Cuttack (Registering Authority) for renewal of the certificate of fitness in respect of the said vehicle and long with that application sent the necessary fee of Rs. 25/. The application was forwarded to the Inspector of Motor Vehicles for disposal. The owner produced the vehicle for inspection on the 20th of May 1954. After inspecting the vehicle bile Inspector of Motor Vehicles communicated she following order to the owner. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES, CUTTACK No. 802 Dated, Cuttack the 21st 'May, 1954 REFUSAL TO RENEW THE CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS. The Vehicle No. ORC. 276 fails in my opinion to comply with the provisions of Chapter V of the M.V. Act, 1939 and the Rules made thereunder because of the following defects- 1. The petrol filling point inside the vehicle, violation of Rule 140(b). I therefore refused the certificate of fitness. The vehicle may be produced for re-inspection after the payment of Rs. 25/- at he S.P.'s office on 255-54 at Collectorate. It will be noticed that by the said order the Inspector of Motor Vehicles directed the owner to pay another sum of Re. 25/- in the S.P.'s office and produce the vehicle On 25-5-54 at Collectorate for inspection. The owner thereupon through the Secretary of the Association protested against the demand for a further fee of Rs. 25/- for re-inspection saying that the original fee deposited before the first inspection would suffice and that it was illegal to demand a fresh fee for the same purpose. The Superintendent of Police in his letter No. 1491/MV dated the 7th June, 1954 informed the Secretary of the Association that the demand for a fresh fee of Rs. 25/- was made in view of the instructions contained in letter No. 1388T/T.A. 128/53 dated the 9th March, 1954 from the Under-Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Transport Department, explaining the Government's view on the subject based on a construction of the relevant provisions of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed gains' this demand of a fresh fee of Rs. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed gains' this demand of a fresh fee of Rs. 25/- for re-inspection and it was urged that the construction put on the statutory rules by the Government in their letter mentioned above as wrong and bat the Superintendent of Police, Cuttack (Registering Authority) was not justified in demanding a fresh fee. 2. The facts all admitted and the case depends on a construction of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 22(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits the driving a motor vehicle in a public place for the purpose of carrying passengers or good's unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with Chapter III of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 38 further says that no such motor vehicle shall be deemed to be validly registered unless it carries a certificate of fitness in Form H as set forth in the First Schedule to the Act, issued by the prescribed authority. That Sub-section further says that where the prescribed authority refusal to issue such certificate of fitness it shall supply to the owner of the vehicle ita reasons for snob refusal. Sub-section (3) of that section confers powers on the prescribed authority to cancel a certificate of fitness at any time if it is satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of the Acts and the rules made thereunder. On such cancellation the registration certificate and other permits given to the vehicle shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate is obtained. Section 41 confers power on the State Government to make rules and Clause (f) of Sub-section (2) of that section expressly says that the rule-making power includes the power to prescribe fees for the issue of certificates of fitness and fur the examination or inspection of motor vehicles and the refund of such fees. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid rule-making power the Government of Orissa in Rule 32 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules made detailed provisions for the issue and renewal of certificates of fitness. Sub-clause (b) of Rule 32 requires that all applications for the grant or renewal of certificates of fitness when submitted to the Registering authority, should be transferred to the Inspector of Motor Vehicles for disposal. Sub-clause (b) of Rule 32 requires that all applications for the grant or renewal of certificates of fitness when submitted to the Registering authority, should be transferred to the Inspector of Motor Vehicles for disposal. Sub-clause (c) confers power on that officer to fix the date, time and place for the inspection of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle is required to produce the vehicle as directed by him. Sub-clause (h) on a construction of which the present case rests may be quoted in fall. The fee for a certificate of fitness or for the renewal of a certificate of fitness shall be twenty five rupees and shall, in both cases include the fee for inspection. Sub-clause (i) confers power on the Inspector of Motor Vehicles either to cancel the certificate of fitness or suspend it for period not exceeding two months. Sub-clause (j) further says that the authority suspending a certificate of fitness shall give the owner a statement in writing of the reasons for such suspension. Rule 46 deals with refund of fees and the material portions of it which are relevant for the present discussions may be quoted as follows Where an inspector of Motor Vehicles refuses to issue or renew a certificate of fitness the fee for the issue or renewal of the certificate of fitness paid, shall be refunded provided that no refund of fee for a certificate of fitness shall be made when the inspection of the vehicle in respect of which the certificate was applied for has been carried out. 4. On a fair reading of Sub-clause (h) of Rule 32 and Rule 46 it seems clear that the fee of Rs. 25/- that is required to be deposited by the applicant is primarily meant to cover the expenses of inspection of the vehicle. That seems to be the main reason why if the application for renewal is refused the fee is not refundable if the inspection has been carried out. Otherwise it is refund able. On behalf of the Government the learned Advocate-General therefore contended that the purpose for which the original fee of Rs. 25/- was paid by the applicant was fully discharged when the vehicle was inspected by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles on the 20th of May, 1954 and when he passed an order refusing to renew the certificate. On behalf of the Government the learned Advocate-General therefore contended that the purpose for which the original fee of Rs. 25/- was paid by the applicant was fully discharged when the vehicle was inspected by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles on the 20th of May, 1954 and when he passed an order refusing to renew the certificate. Hence if the applicant wanted the vehicle to be again inspected on the 25th of May 1954 as directed by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles such an inspection would, in essence, be an inspection in respect of a fresh application for renewal and therefore by virtue of Sub-clause (h) of Rule 82, a fresh fee of Rs. 25/- was payable. 5. Mr. Pal, however, contended that this construction of the relevant rules was incorrect and that in any case in view of the direction of the Inspector of Motor Vehicles for the production of the vehicle for re-inspection on 25-5-54 it should be held that there was no fresh application for renewal of the certificate of fitness but the previous application for renewal of the certificate dated 20-3-54 remain pending and that consequently no fresh fee was payable. 6. For the purpose of disposing of this application it is unnecessary to give a decision on the legal question raised by the learned Advocate-General regarding the construction of Sub-clause (b) of Rule 32 in the light of Rule 46 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules- Even if it be assumed that when an application for renewal of the certificate of fitness of a vehicle is finally rejected after inspection a fresh fee of Rs. 25/- is payable if a fresh application for such renewal is filed the simple question for decision in this case is whether the order of the Inspector of Motor Vehicles dated the 21st May 1954 can be reasonably held to be an order finally disposing of the application for renewal of the certificate of fitness. If really he had finally so disposed of there would have been no necessity for hi to say in the order itself that the vehicle should be produced for re-inspection on 25-5-54 or to fix the place where it should be produced for such inspection. All that Section 88(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act says is that where such an application is refused the owner shall be supplied .with reasons in writing for such refusal. All that Section 88(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act says is that where such an application is refused the owner shall be supplied .with reasons in writing for such refusal. None of the sub-clauses of Rule 82 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules casts any duty on him, to require the owner to produce the vehicle again for re-inspection. Such an Order would, therefore, be gratuitous and it is difficult to believe that the Inspector of Motor Vehicles would have cared to pass a mere gratuitous order. On the other hand, the very fact that the vehicle was required to be produced for re-inspection four days later coupled with the fact that the defect found during the inspection of the 20th May 1954 was of 80 very petty nature easily remediable supports the more reasonable view that the Inspector of Motor Vehicles did not finally dispose of the application for renewal of the certificate of fitness but wanted to give the owner an opportunity to remedy the defect in a short time. Hence, if the vehicle had been produced for re-inspection on the 25th May such a production would not be in pursuance of a fresh application for renewal of that certificate but would, in essence, be a production iv continuation n of the original application for renewal for which fee bag already been paid. Doubtless, the Inspector of Motor Vehicles has used the words "I therefore refused the certificate of fitness". But a lay m an like him may not have used statutory expressions such as 'refusal' correctly and his order must be read and construed as a whole without laying too much emphasis On an expression here or there. 7. Our attention was drawn to Form CFX appended to the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules where in the specimen Form given for 'refusal to renew a certificate of fitness' there are appropriate columns for production of the vehicle for re-examination at a place and time to be specified. This is a general Form which is applicable whether the certificate of fitness is refused or suspended and the columns which are not relevant should be scored through by the officer concerned who is required to sign the Form. This is a general Form which is applicable whether the certificate of fitness is refused or suspended and the columns which are not relevant should be scored through by the officer concerned who is required to sign the Form. Hence, from a mere perusal of the Form it cannot be said that even when an application for renewal of a certificate of fitness is finally rejected the officer concerned should specify the date, time and place where the vehicle should be produced for re-inspection. 8. For the above reasons I would allow the application, set aside the order of the Superintendent of Police, Cuttack (Registering Authority) dated the 7th June, 1954 demanding a fresh fee of Rs. 29/- for re-inspection of the vehicle in question and direct that the application of Petitioner No. 2 for renewal of the certificate of fitness be disposed of by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. There will be no order for costs. Panigrahi, C.J. 9. I agree and would like to make one or two observations. Rule 32(b) says that the fee for a certificate of fitness or for the renewal of a certificate of fitness shall be Re. 25/- and shall, in both cases, include the fee for inspection. The question is whether inspection of a motor vehicle which is undertaken as a preliminary to the issue of a certificate of fitness can be separately charged with a fee every time the Inspector of Motor Vehicles Inspects it. It appears to me that the Act itself makes a distinction between 'examination' and 'Inspection' of motor vehicles. Section 41(f) of the Act enables the State Government to provide by rules for charging fees for the issue or alteration of certificates of fitness and for the examination or inspection of motor vehicles. The examination or inspection which is undertaken as a part of and incidental to, the grant of a certificate of fitness is what is contemplated in Rule 32(b) and I am, therefore, of opinion that irrespective of the number of times the Inspector of Motor Vehicles may inspect a vehicle before he is satisfied about its fitness, only one fee is chargeable under Rule 32(b). The learned Advocate General drew our attention to Rule 46 which deals with refund of fees. The learned Advocate General drew our attention to Rule 46 which deals with refund of fees. We are not concerned in this case with any question of refund of the fee which the applicant has already paid) the only question being whether being liable to pay a fresh fee when be presents the vehicle for inspection before the Inspector of Motor Vehicles a second time. I am satisfied that the rules do not warrant the view advanced by the learned Advocate-General. I would, therefore, agree with the order just now pronounced by my learned brother. Final Result : Allowed