Judgement In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 18-10-96 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specifying maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight of each vehicle. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they owned vehicles of different makes and models and in the certificates of registration the maximum gross vehicle weights have been indicated. In accordance with the said maximum gross vehicle weights as indicated in the certificates of registration, the petitioners have paid road taxes and surcharge and have been plying the vehicles carrying loads. But by the notification dated 18-10-96 issued by the Central Government in purported exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), the Central Government has specified the maximum gross vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight which is less than that specified in the certificates of registration of the respective vehicles. As a result, the petitioners are being prevented by different authorities under the Act from carrying the load in accordance with the maximum gross vehicle weights as indicated in the certificates of registration of the respective vehicles. Aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the said notification dated 18-10-96 issued by the Central Government. 3. When these cases were heard on an earlier occasion, Mr. K. P. Sarma, CGSC, submitted that the impugned notification dated 18-10-96 of the Central Government has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of N. Venkateswara Rao v. STA, (1997) 2 SCC 320 . He, therefore, submitted that these writ petitions may be dismissed following the said judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. Mr. H. N. Sarma, Sr. Addl. GA. Assam, while supporting the said argument of Mr. K. P. Sarma, CGSC, further submitted that pursuant to the impugned notification reducing maximum gross vehicle weight of different vehicles, the authorities under the Act wanted to take steps for revising the maximum gross vehicle weights indicated in the certificates of registration of different vehicles so as to make the certificates of registration consistent with the impugned notification dated 18-10-96. K. P. Sarma, CGSC, further submitted that pursuant to the impugned notification reducing maximum gross vehicle weight of different vehicles, the authorities under the Act wanted to take steps for revising the maximum gross vehicle weights indicated in the certificates of registration of different vehicles so as to make the certificates of registration consistent with the impugned notification dated 18-10-96. But on account of interim orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions, the authorities have not been able to revise the certificates of registration of the vehicles belonging to the petitioners. Mr. H. N. Sarma further submitted that the challenge to the impugned notification dated 18-10-96 of the Central Government on grounds similar to the present writ petitions have also been rejected by a learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 7-1-99 in Civil Rule Nos. 2219/98, 3959/98 and 3558/98. Since the judgment in the said Civil Rules has been delivered recently, Mr. Sarma has not been able to produce the certified copy of the said judgment. 4. Ms. B. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the challenge to the impugned notification dated 18-10-96 in the present writ petitions is different from that in the case of N. Venkateswara Rao v. STA (supra) decided by the Supreme Court. She contended that in the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court, the only contention that was raised was that the Central Government had abdicated its statutory function under Section 58(1) of the Act and left it to the manufacturers of respective vehicles to determine the maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of the vehicle. The Supreme Court rejected the challenge by holding that the Central Government had not abdicated its statutory function under Section 58(1) of the Act. But so far as the present writ petitions are concerned, the challenge to the impugned notification is entirely on different grounds. 5. The first ground of challenge to the impugned notification in these writ petitions, according to Ms. Goyal, is that the impugned notification is not in conformity with sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act. Ms Goyal vehemently argued that a reading of sub-sec. 5. The first ground of challenge to the impugned notification in these writ petitions, according to Ms. Goyal, is that the impugned notification is not in conformity with sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act. Ms Goyal vehemently argued that a reading of sub-sec. (1) of S. 58 of the Act would show that the Central Government will have to take into consideration the number, nature, size of the tyres attached to the wheel of the vehicle and the make and model of the vehicle while fixing the gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of the vehicle. But the impugned notification would show that the number, nature, size of the tyres attached to the wheel of the vehicle and the make and model of the vehicle have been ignored and the maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of the vehicle have been specified in the schedule to the notification independent of make and model of the vehicle and the number, nature and size of tyres. 6. It is difficult to accept the said submission of Ms. Goyal. Clause (1) of the impugned notification shows that the maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of the vehicle are to be as per the vehicle manufacturers rating of the gross vehicle weight and axle weight respectively for each make and model as duly certified by the testing agencies for compliance of rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Similarly, clause (iii) of the impugned notification clearly shows that the maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight of each of such vehicle are to be maximum load permitted to be carried by the tyres as specified in rule 95 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Thus the make and model of the vehicles as well as the maximum load that can be carried by the tyres have been taken into consideration while fixing the maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of the vehicle. Thus the make and model of the vehicles as well as the maximum load that can be carried by the tyres have been taken into consideration while fixing the maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of the vehicle. Clause (ii) of the impugned notification as well as the proviso of the schedule of the notification, however, stipulated that the maximum gross vehicle and the maximum safe axle weight of each of the axle of such vehicles will not exceed the limits as indicated in the schedule. In other words, the maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of the vehicle while being fixed for each make and model of the vehicle or as per the maximum load permitted to be carried by the entries specified in rule 95 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, is not to extend the maximum as indicated in the schedule to the notification. The contention of Ms. Goyal that the impugned notification is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 58 of the Act is misconceived and has no merit. 7. It is next contended by Ms. Goyal that the impugned notification is contrary to rule 95 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which indicates the maximum carrying capacity of different size of tyres with different ply ratings. According to Ms. Goyal, the maximum gross vehicle weight specified in the schedule to the notification is less than the maximum weight permitted to be carried as indicated in the table appended to Rule 95 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and, therefore, the impugned notification is ultra vires Rule 95 of the said Rules. Ms. Goyal contended that the notification issued under the Act cannot be contrary to the Rules made under the Act and, therefore, the notification is liable to be quashed. 8. I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission of Ms. Goyal. Rule 95 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 specifies the size of the tyres of motor vehicles as indicated therein, and the maximum weight which is to be permitted to be carried by each such tyre specified in the table appended to rule 95 of the said Rules. The said rule has no where indicated the maximum gross vehicle weight in respect of the vehicle. The said rule has no where indicated the maximum gross vehicle weight in respect of the vehicle. On the other hand, sub-section (1) of section 58 confers specific power on the Central Government to specify the maximum gross vehicle weight of a vehicle. Under the provisions of the Act, therefore, the power to specify the maximum gross vehicle weight of a vehicle is vested with the Central Government and such power is to be exercised by the Central Government through a notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 58 of the Act. Since the impugned notification specifying the maximum gross vehicle weight has been issued by the Central Government in exercise of such statutory powers under sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act, it is difficult to hold that the said notification is ultra vires Rule 95 of the Rules, 1989, and is liable to be quashed. 9. It is next urged by Ms. Goyal that assuming that the impugned notification dated 18-10-96 was valid in law, the said notification cannot be given retrospective effect inasmuch as there is no indication as such in the said notification that it was to have retrospective effect. Hence all vehicles which were registered prior to 18-10-96 with higher maximum gross vehicle weight than those specified in the impugned notification dated 18-10-96 should be allowed to carry higher load as per such higher maximum gross vehicle weight indicated in their respective certificates of registration. According to Ms. Goyal the impugned notification dated 18-10-96 cannot be given retrospective effect so as to alter or amend the maximum gross vehicle weight as indicated in the certificates of registration prior to 18-10-96. 10. For dealing with the aforesaid submission, it is necessary to read the different provisions of Section 58 of the Act which are quoted herein below : "Special provisions in regard to transport vehicles.- (1) The Central Government may, having regard to the number, nature and size of the tyres attached to the wheels of a transport vehicle (other than a motorcab), and its make and model and other relevant, considerations by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, in relation to each make and model of a transport vehicle, the (maximum gross vehicle weight) of such vehicle and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of such vehicle. (2) A registering authority, when registering a transport vehicle, other than a motorcab, shall enter in the record of registration and shall also enter in the certificate of registration of the following particulars namely :- (a) the unladen weight of the vehicle; (b) the number, nature and size of the tyres attached to each wheel. (c) the gross vehicle weight of the vehicle and the registered axle weight pertaining to the several axles thereof; and (d) if the vehicle is used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers solely or in addition to goods, the number of passengers for whom accommodation is provided and the owner of the vehicle shall have the same particulars exhibited in the prescribed manner on the vehicle. (3) There shall not be entered in the certificate of registration of any such vehicle any gross vehicle weight or a registered axle weight of any of the axles different from that specified in the notification under sub-section (1) in relation to the make and model of such vehicle and to the number, nature and size of the tyres attached to its wheels : Provided that where it appears to the Central Government that heavier weights than those specified in the notification under sub-section (1) may be permitted in a particular locality for vehicles of a particular type, the Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette direct that the provisions of this sub-section shall apply with such modification as may be specified in the order. (4) When by reason of any alteration in such vehicle, including an alteration in the number, nature or size of its tyres, the gross vehicle weight of the vehicle or the registered axle weight of any of its axles no longer accords with the provisions of sub-section (3), the provisions of section 52 shall apply and the registering authority shall enter in the certificate of registration of the vehicle revised registered weights which accord with the said sub-section. (5) In order that the gross vehicle weight entered in the certificate of registration of a vehicle may be revised in accordance with its provisions of sub-section (3), the registering authority may require the owner of transport vehicle in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed to produce the certificate of registration within such time as may be specified by the registering authority.". A reading of sub-section (3) of section 58 of the Act would show that the certificate of registration of any vehicle has to have the gross vehicle weight of registered axle weight of the axles as specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 58 of the Act. Accordingly, as soon as a notification is issued under sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act by the Central Government fixing the maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of the vehicle, the certificate of registration of the vehicle has to be altered and the gross vehicle weight and the registered actual weight of the axles as specified in such notification under sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act has to be entered in such certificate of registration. Sub-section (5) of section 58 of the Act clearly states that in order that the gross vehicle weight entered in the certificate of registration of a vehicle may be revised in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 58 of the Act, the registering authority may require the owner of transport vehicle in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed to produce the certificate of registration within such time as may be specified by the registering authority. Thus submission of Ms. Goyal that the vehicles registered prior to 18-10-96 need not have their certificates of registration altered so as to record the gross vehicle weight or axle weight as indicated in the impugned notification dated 18-10-96 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act has no merit. 10A. Ms. Goyal finally submitted that since the petitioners have paid road tax and surcharge as per the maximum gross vehicle weight as registered in their certificates of registration which was higher than the maximum gross vehicle weight as specified in the impugned notification, the authorities are estopped from altering the certificates of registration of the vehicles of the petitioners and preventing the petitioners from carrying load as per maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of the vehicle as specified in impugned notification dated 18-10-96 for the period for which higher tax has been paid. This contention of Ms. This contention of Ms. Goyal is also misconceived because it is settled position of law that there is no estoppel against law and the impugned notification dated 18-10-96 has been issued by the Central Government in accordance with law and also has the force of law. The petitioners cannot raise a plea of estoppel against such law on the basis of higher tax that they have paid even for the period after 18-10-96. It is, however, always open to the petitioners to claim refund of such higher tax and surcharge paid by them. 11. In the result, the petitioners will have the registration certificates of their respective vehicles altered in accordance with the notification dated 18-10-96 and may carry load as per the gross vehicle weight as specified in the said notification and in case they apply for refund of excess road tax and surcharge paid by them, the competent authority may dispose of the claim for refund in accordance with law. 12. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are dismissed and interim order, if any, is vacated. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.