JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the notification dated 29.12.2016, issued by the Union of India, by which Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has been amended and at Serial No.11 of the table therein, which deals with grant or renewal of fitness certificate, the fee has been fixed at Rs. 200/-, but it has further been indicated there that an additional fee of Rs.50/- for each day of delay after expiry of certificate of fitness shall be levied. This part of the notification is bothering the writ petitioner. 3. It has been submitted at the Bar that the issue was decided by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam v. The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, reported in 2017 (3) Madras L.J. 769. By the aforesaid decision, the said notification was quashed in part. The Union of India has challenged the decision of the Madras High Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is pending in Civil Appeal No. 11216/2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the High Court of Chattisgarh in W.P.(C) No. 841 of 2018 and other analogous matters, decided on 30.11.2018, has taken a view that, in view of the decision of the Madras High Court and pendency of the appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the additional fee in terms of Serial No. 11 of the notification with relation to the issuance of fitness certificate, to be levied after its expiry, shall be kept in abeyance till the final verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court comes, however, the obligations and liabilities to pay the same will depend upon the final verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is awaited in Civil Appeal No. 11216/2017. It is further submitted that a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, in W.P.(C) No. 20912 of 2018 and other analogous cases, has taken a similar view of the matter. 4. It is further submitted that a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, in W.P.(C) No. 20912 of 2018 and other analogous cases, has taken a similar view of the matter. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition also stands disposed of taking a similar view that the additional fee in terms of Serial No. 11 in relation to the fitness certificate to be levied after its expiry shall remain in abeyance till the decision, which may be rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 011216/2017. I.A. No. 3978 of 2019 5. Before parting with the case, we must indicate that learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand has preferred the interlocutory application seeking withdrawal of the counter affidavit to file a better one in view of the fact that they have stated in the counter affidavit that the levy of additional fee amounts to penalty, which according to him also is not a case. However, since the writ petition itself stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, there is no requirement of passing such order in this case. However, this will not disentitle the State to take the amended view. 6. This Interlocutory Application also stands disposed of accordingly.