Patna Zila Truck Association v. State Of Bihar — 1992 DIGILAW 376 (PAT)

Judgment 1. The present writ application has been filed by two Associations of Truck Owners for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Transport Authority not to insist upon production of tax token for the purpose of grant on goods carriage permits under and in accordance with the provisions contained under Secs. 77, 78 and 79 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act only). 2. The petitioners are registered Associations of Truck Owners. According to the statements made in the writ application, respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are not issuing permits to the truck owners unless tax tokens are produced as a proof of deposit of taxes levied under the provisions of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930 (hereinafter in short the State Act). 3. The tax token is an evidence of payment of tax including the additional tax under the provisions of the State Act. According to the petitioners, the respondents are acting mala fide by not granting permits under the Act, which is Central legislation, unless evidence in the form of tax taken showing payment of tax under State legislation is produced. 4. Mr. B. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the insistence on the part of the respondents to produce tax token before grant of permits under the Central Act is wholly extraneous to the purposes of the said Act, therefore, the exercise of such a discretion is impermissible in Law. His further submission is that the above referred two Acts are self contained Codes and are capable of carrying out the objects and purposes of the legislation effectively with the provisions contained in those Acts and therefore, the provisions of the Central Act cannot be resorted to for achieving of the objectives of the State Act. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision in Satya Narain Mishra V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1989 (1) BLJ 298. 5. On the other hand, Mr. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision in Satya Narain Mishra V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1989 (1) BLJ 298. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Jain, learned counsel appearing for the State, by referring to various provisions of the above referred two Acts, has submitted that in view of the provisions contained under the Central Act it is incumbent on the part of the truck owners to produce tax tokens in support of payment of tax in question for seeking goods carriage permit and since under the Scheme of the Act and under the Rule framed thereunder, this requirement is well spelt out, the petitioners cannot be allowed to assail the directions of the respondents on abstract and flimsy grounds. His further submission is that the decision in Satya Narain Mishras case (supra) was rendered under entirely different circumstances and the petitioners are misdirected themselves in placing reliance thereupon. 6. Keeping in view the rival contentions, it is necessary to examine the provisions of both the Acts. So far as the State Act is concerned it has been enacted to impose tax on Motor Vehicles in the State of Bihar. Sec. 6 is the charging Section. Sub-sec. (3) thereof provides for grant of a tax token to the persons paying the tax. Sec. 11 of this Act provides that if a vehicle is found plying without payment of tax it is liable to be seized and can be released only on payment of due taxes and on obtaining of valid tax tokens. Therefore, in view of the provisions of the State Act no motor vehicle including the trucks can be used unless tax tokens are obtained in respect thereof. 7. The Central Act has been enacted with the object to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. In view of Sec. 39 of this Act, no motor vehicle can be driven unless a valid certificate of registration is held in respect of the vehicle. Sec. 56 of the Act, inter alia, provides that the transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Sec. 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness. In view of Sec. 39 of this Act, no motor vehicle can be driven unless a valid certificate of registration is held in respect of the vehicle. Sec. 56 of the Act, inter alia, provides that the transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Sec. 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness. A certificate of fitness can be granted either by the prescribed authority or by an authorised testing station and the said certificate has to contain such particulars and informations as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 8. Secs. 39 to 65 which occur in Chapter IV deal with the registration of motor vehicles. Sec. 39 of the said Act prohibits persons from driving a motor vehicle or permit the same to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the same is registered in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV thereof. Sec. 40 requires the owner of a motor vehicle to cause his vehicle to be registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept. Sec. 44 provides for production of vehicle at the time of registration; or renewal of the certificate of registration of the vehicle and to produce the vehicle before the registering authority or such authority as the State Government may by order to appoint, in order that the registering authority may satisfy itself that the provisions contained in the application are true and that the vehicle complies with the requirements of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Sec. 49 provides that if the owner of a vehicle causes to reside or have his place of business at the address recorded in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, he shall within 30 days of any such change of address, intimate in such form accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government, his new address, to the registering authority by which the certificate of registration was issued, or if the new address is within the jurisdiction of another registering authority, to that other registering authority. The said provision appears to be a mandatory one inasmuch as violation of the provisions of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 49 of the said Act attracts a penal provision as contained in Sub-sec. (2) thereof. The said provision appears to be a mandatory one inasmuch as violation of the provisions of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 49 of the said Act attracts a penal provision as contained in Sub-sec. (2) thereof. Sec. 53 empowers the registering authority to suspend the certificate of registration of the vehicle if the factors enumerated therein exist. Sec. 56 is very important for the purpose of this application and is reproduced hereinbelow : "56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. - (1) Subject to the provisions of Secs. 59 and 60 a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Sec. 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorised testing station mentioned in Sub-sec. (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder. Provided that where the prescribed authority or the authorised testing station refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal." 9. Pursuant to the powers conferred on the Central Government under Sec. 64 of the Central Act, it has framed Rules, namely, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Rules 62 and 73 of the Central Government are relevant for our purpose. Rule 62 provides for the validity of a certificate of fitness in respect of a motor vehicle. Rule 73 provides for submission of tax clearance certificate. The said Rules read as under : "62. Validity of certificate of fitness. - (1) A certificate of fitness in respect of a transport vehicle granted under Sec. 56 shall be in Form 38 and such certificate when granted or renewed shall be valid for the period as indicated below :- (a) new transport vehicle two years. (b) Renewal of certificate of fitness in respect of vehicles mentioned in (a) above, till such time the vehicle completes ten years from the date of its first registration as a new vehicle one year. (c) Renewal of certificate of fitness thereafter six months. (d) for imported vehicles same period as in the case of vehicles manufactured in India having regard to the date of manufacture. (c) Renewal of certificate of fitness thereafter six months. (d) for imported vehicles same period as in the case of vehicles manufactured in India having regard to the date of manufacture. (2) The fee for the grant of renewal of certificate of fitness shall be as specified in Rule 81. 73. Tax clearance certificate to be submitted to the testing station. - No authorised testing station shall accept an application for the grant of renewal of a certificate of fitness unless the same is accompanied by a tax clearance certificate in such form as may be specified by the State Government, from the Regional Transport Officer or Motor Vehicle Inspector having jurisdiction in the area to the effect that the vehicle is not in arrears of motor vehicle tax or any compounding fee referred to in Sub-Sections (5) and (6) of Sec. 86." 10 The State of Bihar also has framed Rules in the year 1989 known as Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules (in short to be stated as the Bihar Rules). Rule 21 of the Bihar Rules provides that District Transport Officer shall be the Registering authority. Rule 28 reads as follows :- "Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles :- (1) Subject to the provisions of Secs. 59 and 60 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Sec. 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorised testing station mentioned in Sub-sec. (2) to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder. Provided that where the prescribed authority or the authorised testing station refuses to issue such certificate it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal." 11 Rule 41A of the Bihar Rules read with Sec. 66 of the Central Act provides that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as the transport vehicle in any public place except in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by the concerned authorities. In view of Rule 48, the application of permit has to be made in Form P. Pr. In view of Rule 48, the application of permit has to be made in Form P. Pr. C. A. It has been provided in the said statutory application form that a certificate of registration has to be presented for obtaining the permit. 12. From the aforesaid discussion it clearly transpires that for obtaining a permit the owner of the vehicle should be possessed of a valid registration certificate. A registration certificate can be said to be valid and in operation, if there is in existence a certificate of fitness in respect of the vehicle. But in view of Rule 73 of the Central Rules, as quoted above, the fitness certificate cannot be granted unless, a tax clearance certificate, in such form as may be specified by the State Government, is filed with the testing station. Under the State Act, as discussed above, tax token is an evidence of payment of taxes. Therefore, in substance, unless tax token is possessed in respect of the period for which certificate of fitness is intended to be obtained, the owners of the goods carriers cannot be said to have any valid certificate of registration, in respect thereof. As such, they cannot be granted the permit for use of vehicle as contemplated under Sec. 79 of the Central Act. 12-A. Keeping in view the discussions made above, it is quite clear that the respondents are acting within the statutory frame work of the Central Act by insisting upon the truck owners to produce tax tokens before acceding to their request for grant of permits. 13. The submission of Mr. B. N. Singh that the Central legislation being a self contained Code, its provisions cannot be utilised for the purpose of achieving the objects of the State Act is concerned, in our opinion, is of no substance. The reasons for taking this view is that the provisions of the Central Act and the Rules framed thereunder itself provides for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the State Motor Vehicles Taxation Laws. The validity of these provisions have not been assailed before us. It may be noticed here that the provisions for producing tax token seems to be quite reasonable and consistent with the object of the Central Act inasmuch as the Central Act has been enacted, inter alia, with an objection (sic) to prohibit unauthorised use of motor vehicles. The validity of these provisions have not been assailed before us. It may be noticed here that the provisions for producing tax token seems to be quite reasonable and consistent with the object of the Central Act inasmuch as the Central Act has been enacted, inter alia, with an objection (sic) to prohibit unauthorised use of motor vehicles. As we have noticed above under the State Act unless taxes are paid, a motor vehicle cannot be used. The permits are obtained under the Central Act by the owners of the vehicle for enabling them to use the same. But if under the State Act vehicles cannot be used until taxes are paid, the authorities under the Central Act would be acting contrary to State Act by authorising the plying of vehicles without ensuring compliance with the provisions of State Act. This will lead to anomalous and conflicting situations. Therefore, it is reasonable that before authorising any person to use the vehicle, the compliance of the relevant statutory provisions under the State Act are also ensured. 14. The decision of this Court in Satya Narain Mishras case (supra) was rendered in different circumstances. The said decision was passed under the provisions as contained in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 15. There cannot be any doubt that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930, are self contained Codes. Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, there was no provision for production of a tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles. In that situation, it was held that the power conferred upon the authorities under the provisions of the two statutes were different and the Officers empowered to do a particular act in accordance with the provisions of that Act could not get power conferred upon under the other Act, as they operate in different fields. Further, the power to issue the impugned circular was sought to be derived from Sec. 43A of 1935 Act. 16. However, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have brought in certain fundamental changes. 17. Further, the power to issue the impugned circular was sought to be derived from Sec. 43A of 1935 Act. 16. However, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have brought in certain fundamental changes. 17. From a bare comparison of Sec. 38 of the 1935 Act and Sec. 56 of the 1988 Act, it would appear that for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness, the vehicle has to comply with the requirements of the said Act and the rules made thereunder; which was not the requirement of the 1935 Act. 18. In that Act there was no provision for production of tax clearance certificate as contained under the present Act and the Rules. As noticed above, it was because of this reason that it was held that the authorities had no jurisdiction in law to insist for production of tax tokens. Therefore, the said decision has no application in the facts and the circumstances of the present case. 19. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this application and it is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Application dismissed.