JUDGMENT 1. WP.No.683/2022 is filed seeking the following reliefs: "i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order quashing the impugned Notification No.TC/Regn-1/PR-412/2021-22 dtd. 20/12/2021 passed by the Commissioner of Transport and Road Safety, Bangalore at Annexure-K and direct the Respondent No.2 to grant BH series registration to the Petitioner. ii) Pass any other orders/direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. iii) To award costs." 2. WP.No.2153/2022 is filed seeking the following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order setting aside the Communication bearing number SaAa/Nondani- 1/PR-412/2021-22 dtd. 20/12/2021 issued by the Respondent No 2 (at Annexure - H). (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondent No 1 to grant the BHSeries registration mark to the Petitioner's vehicle, being a metallic magma gray-Z7Q Maruti Wagon R XVI (O) IL AGS- WAA4CVA car,having Chassis number MA3JMT31SMF494697 and Engine Number K10BN8536497, in accordance with Sec. 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the Central Motor Vehicles (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 2021. (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondent No 3 to implement the Central Motor Vehicles (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 2021 in the State of Karnataka, in letter and spirit. (d) Grant such other orders as may be just including the costs of this Petition, in the interests of justice." 3. Since the main relief sought in both the above Writ Petitions is quashing of the Communication bearing No.TC/Regn-1/PR-412/2021-22, dtd. 20/12/2021 issued by the Commissioner of Transport and Road Safety, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner in WP.No.683/2022 that he is employed in M/s Fortinet Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') as a Director w.e.f., 1/12/2015 and that, it is a transferable job. The said Company has its offices across India and regional offices in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Kerala. That the Petitioner has purchased a Toyota Fortuner Sigma IV (AT) from M/s Ravindu Toyota, Victoria Road, Bangalore. 5. The said Company has its offices across India and regional offices in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Kerala. That the Petitioner has purchased a Toyota Fortuner Sigma IV (AT) from M/s Ravindu Toyota, Victoria Road, Bangalore. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner in WP.No.2153/2022 that she is employed as a Team Lead for the Project Management Team at Accenture Solutions Pvt., Ltd., which Company has branches all over the country and the said job of the Petitioner is subject to transfer within India. That on 7/9/2021 she has purchased a metallic magma gray -Z7Q Maruti Wagon R XVI (O) 1L AGS-WAA4CVA car, having chassis number MA3JMT31SMF494697 and engine number K10BN8536497 from Varun Motors Pvt. Ltd., Malleshwaram, Bengaluru. 6. It is the case of the Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions that, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (hereinafter referred to as 'MORTH'), Government of India, vide Notification bearing No.G.S.R.594(E), dtd. 26/8/2021, introduced a new registration mark for new vehicles called "Bharath Series (BH-Series)" and that the marking will not require an assignment of a new registration mark when the owner of the vehicle shifts from one State to another. That as per the said Notification dtd. 26/8/2021, the vehicle registration facility under BH-Series will be available on voluntary basis to defence personnel, employees of Central Government/State Government, Central/State Government Public Sector Undertakings, private sector companies/organizations which are having their offices in 4 or more States/Union Territories. That the Petitioners after purchase of the vehicles sought for registration of their vehicles as per the BH-Series. However, they were informed by the dealer that the on-line portal is not accepting BH-Series registration for private individuals. Further, it is contended by the Petitioners that the Transport Offices in the State of Karnataka are not accepting registration of the vehicles of the Petitioners under BH-Series by virtue of the Notification dtd. 20/12/2021 issued by the Commissioner of Transport and Road Safety, Bangalore. Hence, the present Writ Petitions are filed seeking for suitable reliefs. 7. The reliefs sought for by the Petitioners are opposed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State of Karnataka by filing the Statement of Objections. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 although admit the Notification dtd. 26/8/2021 issued by the MORTH, New Delhi introducing BH-Series registration for non-transport vehicles and that, the Government of Karnataka has issued a Notification dtd. 7. The reliefs sought for by the Petitioners are opposed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State of Karnataka by filing the Statement of Objections. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 although admit the Notification dtd. 26/8/2021 issued by the MORTH, New Delhi introducing BH-Series registration for non-transport vehicles and that, the Government of Karnataka has issued a Notification dtd. 30/11/2021 permitting the authorities to register non - transport vehicles under BH-Series in terms of the Notification dtd. 26/8/2021. However, due to registration of vehicles under BH-Series there is a possibility of reduce in collection of State revenue and that the Department may not reach the target fixed by the State Government in collection of revenue, hence the communication/letter dtd. 20/12/2021 was issued to register the new non-transport vehicles of persons excluding the private sector employees under BH-Series registration in the first phase. It is further contended that, since most of the employees are working on contract basis and they are frequently changing from one Company to another, there is no guarantee of working in the same Company, the said communication dtd. 20/12/2021 is issued; that there would be no provision to check the genuinity of documents issued by the Private Companies and hence, the same would be a draw back to the State Government for collecting taxes; that the State is empowered under Entry 57 to List II of the State List in 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India and is competent to levy and collect taxes on vehicles which is a State subject; that the stand of the State is confirmed vide communication letter dtd. 11/5/2022 and a partial modification of the same has been issued vide Notification dtd. 4/8/2022 in consonance with the communication letter dtd. 7/1/2022. Hence, the learned HCGP seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 8. The learned Counsels for the Petitioners contends that under Sec. 64(b) and (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') it is the Central Government which is vested with the power to make Rules with respect to registration of vehicles and that the power of the State Government is contained under Sec. 65 of the MV Act, under which the State Government does not have any power with regard to the registration of vehicles. Hence, it is submitted that the Petitioners having submitted all relevant documents as contemplated under the Notification dtd. Hence, it is submitted that the Petitioners having submitted all relevant documents as contemplated under the Notification dtd. 26/8/2021 issued by the Government of India and the Petitioners having demonstrated that their employers have branches in four States, the reliefs sought in the Writ Petition are liable to be granted. The learned Counsels further relied upon the letter dtd. 2/12/2021 issued by the MORTH, Government of India to the Jurisdictional Commissioners of the State requesting for implementation of the Notification dtd. 26/8/2021 since grievences from the public were received in this regard. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No.683/2022 further submitted that in respect of similarly placed persons, the jurisdictional authorities of the State have registered the vehicle under BH-Series. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No.2153/2022 submitted that Article 256 of the Constitution of India clearly stipulates the obligation of the States and the Union visa-a-vis the laws made by the Parliment and the executive power of the Union to give any such directions to a State for the compliance of such laws. Hence, the learned counsels seek for granting of the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petitions. 9. The learned HCGP reiterates the contentions putforth in the Statement of Objections. 10. The Government of India who is also arrayed as a party Respondent has filed its Statement of Objections in WP.No.2153/2022 and has placed on record the communication dtd. 2/12/2021 which has requested implementation of the Notification dtd. 26/8/2021. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The question that arises for consideration is, 'Whether the reliefs sought in the Writ Petitions are liable to be granted?' 12. It is the case of the Petitioners that they have purchased vehicles as aforementioned and that their request for registration of the same is being refused by the jurisdictional transport authorities of the State of Karnataka by relying upon the communication dtd. 20/12/2021. It is clear from the Notification dtd. It is the case of the Petitioners that they have purchased vehicles as aforementioned and that their request for registration of the same is being refused by the jurisdictional transport authorities of the State of Karnataka by relying upon the communication dtd. 20/12/2021. It is clear from the Notification dtd. 26/8/2021 issued by the MORTH that the Central Motor Vehicles (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 2021, were made in exercise of power under Sec. 64(a), (d) and (p) of the MV Act, whereby various amendments were made in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, enabling registration of the vehicles under BH-Series and the said facility was to be available on "voluntary basis to defense personnel, employees of Central Government/State Government/Central/State Public Sector Undertakings and private sector companies/organizations, which have their offices in four or more States/Union Territories"; 13. With regard to the tax to be levied, Rule 51-B was inserted vide Notification dtd. 26/8/2021, whereunder for BH-Series, the motor vehicle tax was to be levied for 2 years or in multiples of two and after completion of 14 years, the motor vehicle tax was to be levied annually which shall be half of the amount of which was charged earlier for that vehicle. 14. Sec. 64(a), (b), (c), (d), (da) and (p) of the MV Act, 1988 reads as follows: 64. Power of Central Government to make rules.-The Central Government may make rules to provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the period within which and the form in which an application shall be made and the documents, particulars and information it shall accompany undersub-sec. (1) of sec. 41; (b) the form in which the certificate of registration shall be made and the particulars and information it shall contain and the manner in which it shall be issued under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 41; (c) the form and manner in which the particulars of the certificate of registration shall be entered in the records of the registering authority undersub-sec. (5) of sec. 41; (d) the manner in which and the form in which the registration mark, the letters and figures and other particulars referred to in sub-sec. (6) of sec. (3) of sec. 41; (c) the form and manner in which the particulars of the certificate of registration shall be entered in the records of the registering authority undersub-sec. (5) of sec. 41; (d) the manner in which and the form in which the registration mark, the letters and figures and other particulars referred to in sub-sec. (6) of sec. 41 shall be displayed and shown; [(da) providing for the period of validity of a certificate of registration under sub-seciton (7) of Sec. 41;] xxxx (p) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed by the Central Government. 15. Sec. 65 of the MV Act reads as follows: 65. Power of State Government to make rules.- (1) A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter other than the matters specified in Sec. 64. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provided for - xxx 16. It is clear from the aforementitoned that, as per Sec. 64 of the MV Act, the Central Goverment is empowered to make rules regarding registration of vehicles. The power under Sec. 65 of the MV Act specifies that, the State Government is entitled to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect various aspects except matters specified in Sec. 64 of the MV Act. The power enumerated under Sec. 65 of the MV Act do not entitle the State to make any Rules/stipulation regarding registration of vehilces. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the Transport Authorities of the State cannot in any manner restrict the compliance in entiriety of the Central Motor vehicles (twentieth Amendment) Rules, 2021 which has been issued vide notification dtd. 26/8/2021. Further, the MORTH having noticed that the same has not been implemented in certain States had issued a communicaton dtd. 02/12/2021 requesting implementaion of the notification dtd. 26/8/2021. The MORTH is fully competent to issue such a communication as is evident from Article 256 of Constituiton of India and it is incumbent on the Transport Authorities of the State to follow the same. 17. 02/12/2021 requesting implementaion of the notification dtd. 26/8/2021. The MORTH is fully competent to issue such a communication as is evident from Article 256 of Constituiton of India and it is incumbent on the Transport Authorities of the State to follow the same. 17. The benefits of implementing BH-Series registration was also envisaged by the Government of India, inter alia- that it avoided the cumbersome process of citizens bringing NOC from one State and apply for new registration mark in the other State and apply for refund of taxes from the previous State of transfer to another. 18. The apprehension of the State of Karnataka that, the private sector employees are working on contract basis and are frequently chainging from one company to another, is not a ground not to adhere to the Notification dtd. 26/8/2021 in its entirety. It is open to the officers/officials of the State Government to scrupulously scrutinze the documents, so that, the private sector employess who opt to register thier vehicles under BHSeries registration satisfy the criteria as stipulated in the Notification dtd. 26/8/2021. 19. Further, with regard to the contention of the State Government that it would result in loss of revenue was also taken by the other State Governments in various other litigations and the said aspect was referred to Lok Sabha discussion dtd. 21/7/2022 in question No.738 regarding Bh-Series registration vehicles and it was answered by the Hon'ble Minister for Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, that even though the motor vehicles shall pay tax for a period of 2 years or in multiples of it, at 25% higher rate and the same being remitted to respective State/Union Territory on-line and hence, there is no finance loss to the State exchequer. 20. The stand of the State Government in issuing inter alia notification bearing No.SaAa/Nondani-1/PR412/2021-22 dtd. 20/12/2021 (Annexure-K to the Writ Petition) specifically execluding one class of persons i.e. "employees of private sector organisations, which have their offices in four or more States/Union terriotories" cannot in any manner be upheld having regard to the specific mandate of law as noticed above mentitoned. The subsequent communciation bearing No.TD 276 TDO 2021 dtd. 11/5/2022 and No. TD 276 TDO 2021 dtd. 4/8/2022 (Annexures-R1 and R2 to the Writ Petition respectively) also do not cover the said category of "employees of private sector organisations, which have their offices in four or more States/Union terriotories". The subsequent communciation bearing No.TD 276 TDO 2021 dtd. 11/5/2022 and No. TD 276 TDO 2021 dtd. 4/8/2022 (Annexures-R1 and R2 to the Writ Petition respectively) also do not cover the said category of "employees of private sector organisations, which have their offices in four or more States/Union terriotories". Hence, the same cannot be relied upon by the State Authorities in justification of their actions. 21. The Notification dtd. 26/8/2021, issued by the MORTH, Government of India, specifically deals with registration of vehicles and hence the Central Government is fully empowered to make Rule for matters provided under Sec. 64 of the MV Act. Hence, the attempt of the State Government to deviate from the Notification dtd. 26/8/2021, cannot be sustained. 22. Hence, the above question framed for consideration, is answed in the affirmative. 23. In view of the aforementioned, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petitions are allowed; ii. The Notification bearing No.TC/Regn-1/PR412/2021-22, dtd. 20/12/2021 issued by the Commissioner of Transport and Road Safety, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, is quashed; iii. The Commissioner of Transport and Road Safety, Shantinagar - Respondent No.2 in both the Writ Petitions, is directed to register the motor vehicle of the Petitioner in WP.No.683/2022, namely Toyota Fortuner Sigma IV (AT) from M/s Ravindu Royota, Victoria Road, Bangalore and the motor vehicle of the Petitioner in WP.No.2153/2022, namely metallic magma gray -Z7Q Maruti Wagon R XVI (O) 1L AGSWAA4CVA car, having chassis number MA3JMT31SMF494697 and engine number K10BN8536497 from Varun Motors Pvt. Ltd., Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, forthwith as per the Notification dtd. 26/8/2021 under BHSeries, forthwith. iv. State Government is directed to implement the Central MV Act (20th Amendment) Rules, 2021 issued vide notification bearing No.G.S.R.594(E), dtd. 26/8/2021. No costs.