Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 814 (JHR)

Shekhar Bhushan Nag v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-31

AMITAV K.GUPTA, R.BANUMATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT AMITAV K. GUPTA, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.08.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3726 of 1999 (R) whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 2. The fact exposited in the aforesaid writ petition is that the appellant/petitioner is a license holder of an authorized testing station under Rule 63(1) and (5) of Central Motor Vehicles Rule 1989 by Letter of Authority No. 2 of 1990 to run a testing station at Jamshedpur. The petitioner has established and is running the testing station. It is stated that Section 56 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 states that a certificate of fitness can be issued by a prescribed authority or by an authorized testing station for plying a transport vehicle. That due to the arbitrary action of the respondents, he is not being allowed to issue the certificate of fitness for the renewal of a certificate of registration for a Motor Vehicle as stipulated under Rule 52 as well as the Pollution Certificate under Rule 115 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989. 3. On the above facts, the appellant/petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction upon the respondents to allow the appellant/petitioner to issue the pollution certificate to the motor vehicles and to permit the petitioner/appellant to grant fitness certificate for the vehicles for renewal of certificate of registration as required under Rule 52 of Central Motor Vehicles Rule. 4. The learned Single Judge rejected the prayer to grant the petitioner/appellant permission to issue fitness certificate for the vehicles with respect to renewal of certificate of registration under Rule 52 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule. However, the prayer for issuance of Pollution Under Control certificate was allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned order and judgment has argued that the learned Single Judge has wrongly construed the words which is before the word ‘authority’, as incorporated in Rule 52(2), as sub-Rule (2) of Rule 52 only says that registering authority shall refer the vehicle to the authority and not that authority which has been interpreted by the learned Single Judge. That such interpretation is against the settled principle and that the Court can not replace one word for another; that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the word authority as envisaged under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 52 will take the colour of subsequent words and Sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 connotes authority which means the prescribed authority as well as the authorized testing station, who are competent to grant the fitness certificate, that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that it is not possible for a Motor Vehicle Inspector to issue fitness certificate and inspect thousands of vehicles plying in a district; that the Motor Vehicle Inspectors do not have the necessary equipments for checking the vehicle for the purpose of issuance of certificate of fitness. 6. In course of argument learned counsel has drawn our attention to the statement of objects and reasons whereby the Motor Vehicles Act,1939 was replaced and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enacted and submitted that the important modifications have been noted in the objects and reasons and for the purpose of instant appeal, the object for modification as mentioned in the proposal related to taking care of the fast increasing number of both commercial and personal vehicles in the country and the need for effective ways for tracking down traffic offenders, accordingly, the Legislature, after reviewing the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, prepared proposed legislation and made provisions for issuance of fitness certificate of the vehicles by the authorized testing stations. Thus in the light of the proposals the modification was made in Section 56 which prescribes registration of motor vehicles under Section 39 of the Act can be done only after a fitness certificate is issued by the prescribed authority or by an authorized testing station. That under sub-Clause (2) of Section 56, the meaning of authorized testing station has been elaborated to whom license is granted, by the State Government, having regard to the experience, training and ability of the operator which may be specified in accordance with the Rules made by the Central Government for regulation and control of such authorized testing stations. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the authorized testing station is issued the letter of authority by the registering authority. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the authorized testing station is issued the letter of authority by the registering authority. The certificate of fitness is issued in Form 38 under the signature of the inspecting authority or the holder of letter of authority of the authorized testing station. That Rule 65 (g) lays down that the authorized testing station, having the letter of authority, shall not charge a fee for inspection of a vehicle for the purpose of issuance or renewal of the appropriate certificate of fitness which shows that the Parliament intended that the authorized agent is empowered to issue a renewal certificate of fitness for the renewal of certificate of registration. That Rule 52 deals with renewal of certificate of registration with respect to the owner of a motor vehicle and in sub-Rule (2) it is specifically mentioned that on receipt of an application under sub-Rule 1 the registering authority shall refer the vehicle to the authority referred to in sub-Section 1 of Section 56 and after obtaining a certificate of fitness from that authority, renew the certificate of registration. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that on plain reading the only conclusion which can be arrived at, is that the word ‘the authority’ mentioned in Clause 1 of Section 56 of the Act means the prescribed authority or an authorized testing station as both the words should be read in harmony as the Parliament had intended to include the authorized testing station referred to in Section 56(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 within the definition of authority as mentioned in Rule 52 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 9. On the said ground it has been urged that the learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted the meaning of the word authority by giving it a narrow interpretation holding that it only means the prescribed authority i.e. the Motor Vehicle Inspector which never was the intention of the Legislature which had brought about the modification in the words and definition of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by incorporating authorized testing station in Section 56 of the Act by the amended Act of 1988. 10. 10. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in the case of V. Tulasamma and others vs. Sesha Reddi, 1977 (3) SCC 99 and referred to para 69 of the judgment wherein it has been held "it is an elementary rule of construction that no provision of a statute should be construed in isolation but it should be construed with reference to the context and in the light of the other provisions of the statute so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute." It is contended by the learned counsel that the according to the Rule of interpretation and of the statute and the intention of the Parliament, the authority under sub-Rule 2 of Rule 52 includes the authorized testing station. Thus, the interpretation by the learned Single Judge that authority means only the prescribed authority is not correct interpretation accordingly, the finding of the learned Single Judge on the point is fit to be set aside. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that Rule 52 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 stipulates about renewal of certificate of registration for which Form 25 has to be filled up whereafter, on receipt of the application, vehicle is referred to the authority mentioned in sub-Section 1 of Section 56 mentioned of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. That the prescribed authority mentioned in Section 56(1) of the Act means an authority on whom power is conferred under Section 213 and the State Government under the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 has conferred the power on Motor Vehicle Inspector under Rules 51 and 52 to grant the certificate of fitness of the State Rules which provides for issuance, renewal and cancellation of certificate of fitness by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the authority mentioned in Section 56(1) means the prescribed authority and the authorized testing station is not that authority as mentioned in Rule 51(2) of the Central Rules, who can give a certificate of fitness in the matter of renewal of certificate of registration and the present appeal is fit to be dismissed. 12. In view of the submissions advanced it is relevant to refer to Section 56 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 which reads as under:- "56. 12. In view of the submissions advanced it is relevant to refer to Section 56 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 which reads as under:- "56. Certificate of fines of transport vehicles – (1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 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-section (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 refuse to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal. (2) The authorized testing station referred to in sub-section (1) means a vehicle service station or public or private garage which the State Government, having regard to the experience, training and ability of the operator off such station or garage and the testing equipment and the testing personnel therein, may specify in accordance with the rules spade by the Central Government for regulation and control of such stations or garages. (3)…………………………… (4) The prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder and on such cancellation the certificate of registration of the vehicle and any permit granted in respect of the vehicle under Chapter V shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate of fitness has been obtained. (5) ……………………………" It is evident that the certificate of fitness is to be issued by the prescribed authority or by an authorized testing station mentioned in sub-Section (2). The meaning of authorized testing station has been elaborated in Sub-section (2). 13. It is noticed that the Central Government has the power to make rules under Section 64 in the matters referred to under Sections 41, 47, 48, 49, 51 from Clause (a) to (l) and (o) to (p). The meaning of authorized testing station has been elaborated in Sub-section (2). 13. It is noticed that the Central Government has the power to make rules under Section 64 in the matters referred to under Sections 41, 47, 48, 49, 51 from Clause (a) to (l) and (o) to (p). In Clause (m) and (n) reference has been made regarding the Form in which certificate of fitness is to be renewed and Clause (n) relates to the period for which certificate of fitness is granted or renewed under Section 56(1) shall remain effective. The State Government has been conferred the power to make rules under Section 65, for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV which includes Section 56. Under sub-Section (2) of Section 65, the State Government is empowered to make rules for the issue or renewal of certificates of registration and fitness and duplicates of such certificates are issued if the certificates are lost, destroyed or mutilated. The State Government is also empowered to make rules for the appointment, functions and jurisdiction of registering and other prescribed authorities. 14. Section 212 relates to publication, commencement and laying down of Rules and Notifications and Clause 3 of Section 212 stipulates that every Rule made by any State Government shall be laid as soon as possible, after it is made before the State Legislature. Section 213 empowers the State Government to establish a Motor Vehicle Department and appoint officers for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. The State Government has been empowered to make rules to regulate the discharge by the officers of the Motor Vehicle Department and of their functions. Sub-Section 5 of Section 213 provides certain other powers in addition to the powers conferred by the State Government. 15. Accordingly, the State Government published Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 (for short the State Rules) wherein the registering authority has defined in Rule 40 as under:- "40. Sub-Section 5 of Section 213 provides certain other powers in addition to the powers conferred by the State Government. 15. Accordingly, the State Government published Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 (for short the State Rules) wherein the registering authority has defined in Rule 40 as under:- "40. Registering Authority – The District Transport Officer shall be the Registering Authority: Provided that a Motor Vehicle Inspector may on being authorised by the Registering Authority perform any of the duties of the Registering Authority under the Act and the Rules." Rule 51, sub-Rule (1) of the State Rules prescribes that Certificate of fitness may be issued or renewed by Motor Vehicles Inspector or authorized testing station, subject to the general control and direction of the appropriate Registering Authority. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 51 categorically states that the authority empowered to cancel the certificate of fitness under the provisions of sub-Section (4) of Section 65 shall be the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Enforcement Officer and the Registering Authority. In sub-Rule (51) the word Authority has been used with reference to the power of the Registering Authority, the Motor Vehicles Inspector or the Enforcement Officer and it has no where been mentioned that the authorized testing station comes within the meaning or purview of the word Authority. 16. Having gone through the provisions of the Rules of the State Government (Supra), notified in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is evident that the word Authority pertains to the Motor Vehicles Inspector or the Registering Authority or any other person notified by the Registering Authority. The Act empowers the State Government to enact Rules for regulating and controlling the discharge by officers and Rule 51 of State Rules, as noticed, provides for issuance of certificate of fitness or renewal by Motor Vehicle Inspector or authorized testing station, subject to the general control and direction of the appropriate Registering Authority. 17. Having discussed the provisions of the Rules of the State Government, it is relevant to peruse the provisions of Rule 52 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short Central Rules) which reads as under:- "52. 17. Having discussed the provisions of the Rules of the State Government, it is relevant to peruse the provisions of Rule 52 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short Central Rules) which reads as under:- "52. Renewal of Certificate of Registration – (1) An application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle, other than a transport vehicle, for the renewal of a certificate of registration, shall be made to the registering authority in whose jurisdiction the vehicle is, in Form 25 not more than sixty days before the date of expiry, accompanied by the appropriate fee as specified in Rule 81. (2) On receipt of an application under Sub-Rule (1), the registering authority shall refer the vehicle to the authority referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 56 and after obtaining a certificate of fitness from that authority, renew the certificate of registration: Provided that in a case where the certificate of fitness is granted on a date after the expiry of a certificate of registration, the renewal shall be made from the date of grant of the certificate of fitness for a period of five years." 18. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the word “authority” has not been defined under the Act and in Black's Law Dictionary-Seventh Edition, authority means the right or permission to act legally on another's behalf, the power delegated by a Principal to an agent. It has been argued that the authorized testing station has been granted the letter of authority which shows that power has been delegated to him as a holder of letter of authority and he is an authority in terms of Section 56(1) read with Rule 52(2) and the denial of issuance of certificate of fitness to the petitioner/appellant for renewal of certificate of registration is illegal and arbitrary. It is contended that in the given legal position and definition of the word authority learned Single Judge has erred in law. 19. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable as in various decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that dictionaries are not dictators or statutory construction for interpretation of a Statute. It is contended that in the given legal position and definition of the word authority learned Single Judge has erred in law. 19. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable as in various decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that dictionaries are not dictators or statutory construction for interpretation of a Statute. That dictionary meaning of a word cannot be resorted to rather words of a common parlance have to be construed and a duty is cast on the Court not to fill up the gap by stretching a word used rather the words used in a Statute have to be construed in their ordinary meaning. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel also lays down that no provision of a Statute should be construed in isolation but, should be construed with reference to the context and in the light of other provision of the Statute so, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole Statute. 20. The aforesaid ratio laid by the appellant is supportive of the fact that a provision of a Statute and the word are to be read as a whole and the intention and object of the Legislation has to be seen while interpreting the Statute. 21. It is also settled principle that the statement and object in framing a legislation is not the ultimate guide in the interpretation of a Statute rather it is an aid and it cannot control the meaning of the actual words used in the Act. It can only be referred to for the limited purpose for ascertaining the reasons, the background, the antecedent state of affairs and the circumstances which actuated the sponsoring of the bill or the Act. In the case of Bhaji vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla, (2003) 1 SCC 692 the Supreme Court held that the statement of object and reasons cannot be utilized for the purpose of restricting and controlling the plain meaning employed by the Legislature in drafting the Statute. 22. As discussed above, it is also necessary to state that Rule 52 requires that the application for renewal of certificate of registration has to be made in Form 25 and the same has to be made to the Registering Authority. 22. As discussed above, it is also necessary to state that Rule 52 requires that the application for renewal of certificate of registration has to be made in Form 25 and the same has to be made to the Registering Authority. The particulars of the entry in Form 25 need verification and such enquiry and verification and be conducted impartially by a government servant i.e. an officer who is delegated with the power and has the authority under the Act. As per Form 25 the verification thereof has to be done by Motor Vehicle Inspector. 23. We have noticed that under the State Rules, as discussed above, the word authority is with reference to the Motor Vehicle Inspector or the enforcement officer. Had the Legislature intended to denote the authorized testing station as that authority, as referred to in Rule 52 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the Legislature would have clearly stated that the authorized testing station in Clause 2 of Section 56 shall also be deemed to be the authority or that authority in terms of the provisions of the Act or Rule. Thus, in the absence of any stipulation to that effect, it is as apparent that the Legislature did not intend to include the authorized testing station as the authority or that authority in terms of Rule 52. 24. Admittedly, the State Rules of 1992 were laid in the Legislature as required in terms of Section 212(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and published in terms of Sub-Rule (2). The State Rules are in conformity with the scheme as envisaged in the Central Act. The rules have been accorded legal sanction. 25. The word authority, in terms of State Rules which is in consonance with the scheme of the Central Act and Rules, means and connotes the authority empowered by the Registering Authority and it is nowhere stated in either the State Rules/Central Act or Rules that the authorized testing station is the authority or that authority as mentioned in Section 56(1) of the Act of 1988. 26. 26. It will not be out of place to state that it is a settled legal position that a uniform and consistent departmental practice arising out of construction placed upon an ambiguous statute by the highest executive officer at or near the time of it's enactment and continuing for a long period of time is an admissible aid to proper construction of the statute by the Court and would not be disregarded except for urgent reasons. The controlling effect of this aid which is known as executive construction would depend upon various factors such as length of time for which it is followed, the nature of rights and property affected by it, the injustice resulting from its departure and the approval it has received in judicial decision or in legislation. The above principle has been relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Gandhi vs. B. Singh, (2004) 2 SCC 120 (page 127). 27. Thus, in the light of the discussions and the provisions of law we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant is only an authorized testing station and he is neither the prescribed authority mentioned in Clause (1) of Section 56 of the Act nor that Authority mentioned in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 52. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that for grant of fresh certificate of registration in terms of Section 56 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a transport vehicle, the certificate of fitness can be granted by the prescribed authority or by an authorized testing station, but, in case of renewal of certificate of registration, as envisaged under Rule 52 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the same can be granted on the basis of certificate of fitness issued by the prescribed authority mentioned in Clause (1) of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act and not on the basis of the certificate of fitness issued by an authorized testing station. 28. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the appeal is hereby dismissed.