- (1.) M/s. Nag Auto Testing Station is the petitioner herein. The petitioner is one of the testing stations, who has been authorized to grant certificate of fitness to motor vehicles under the license granted by the State under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The State issued notification dated 10-9-2003, requiring the Authorized Testing stations to obtain counter-signature from the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the fitness certificates before issuing the same. Having aggrieved by the said compulsion of getting counter-signature from the Motor Vehicle Inspectors, the petitioner, the Authorized Testing Station, has filed this writ petition, challenging the validity of the said notification dated 10-9-2003, for quashing of the same.
(2.) THE basic facts, which are relevant for the disposal of the writ petition, are as follows: the writ petitioner is a private testing station. It has been granted license under section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to grant certificates of fitness to motor vehicles. Only on the basis of the said fitness certificates, the owners of the motor vehicles can approach the Transport Authority for issuance of road permit. Initially, the Transport authority insisted that the said fitness certificates to be counter-signed by the Joint transport Commissioner before being Issued. Objecting to this Insistence of the transport Authority, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition, for Issuance of a mandamus In CWJC No. 4092/2000 before the learned single Judge of this Court. However, the learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition and directed the petitioner to follow the executive instructions issued by the Transport Authority and also directed the Joint Commissioner to receive the papers from the Testing Stations and return the same after counter-signature without any delay. Taking advantage of the said direction, the State Government issued a notification dated 21-2-2000, authorizing the joint Commissioners to counter-sign the fitness certificates issued by the authorized testing Stations. Accordingly, the petitioner has been following the said direction. Later, the State Government issued a fresh notification dated 10-9-2003 in modification of the earlier notification dated 21-2-2000, requiring the Authorized Testing Stations to get the counter-signature of the Motor vehicle Inspectors, instead of Joint Transport commissioners. Though the petitioner, in pursuance of the said notification, approached the Motor Vehicle Inspectors for getting the counter-signature over the fitness certificates, the Motor Vehicle inspectors refused to counter-sign on the ground that the forms will be counter-signed only after the fitness of the vehicles are checked by them. The petitioner, having felt the various practical difficulties in obtaining the counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the fitness certificates, has chosen to challenge the above notification dated 10-9-2003 issued by the State and filed this writ petition, for quashing the same.
(3.) MR. V. P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would make the following submissions in order to show that the notification dated 10-9-2003 issued by the State lacks jurisdiction and hence the same is liable to be quashed :- (A) Under Section 56 (1) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, the certificate of fitness for the vehicles can be issued by either of the two authorities - one is the Motor Vehicle inspectors and the other is the Authorized testing Stations. Under Rules 62, 63 and 65 of the Central Rules, the Authorized testing Stations are to follow the conditions, procedures and regulations which are formulated by the Central Government to control the Authorized Testing Stations. Under section 56 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the state Government has specified the authorized Testing Stations in the State to issue certificates of fitness as per the relevant rules of the Central Rules. Those Authorized testing Stations get letter of authority in Form 39 to issue certificates of fitness. Thus, it is clear that the State Government can put only such conditions which are available in the rules formulated by the Central Government. Now in the notification dated ,10-9-2003, the State Government added a new condition in the letter of authority compelling the Authorized Testing Stations to get the counter-signature of the Motor Vehicle inspectors in the fitness certificates, which has not been provided in Rule 65 of the Central Rules. Therefore, this notification is not valid. (B) Rule 67 provides only for inspection of the vehicles by the Motor Vehicle Inspectors at the premises of the Testing Stations. It does not provide for countersignature of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the certificates of fitness issued by the Authorized Testing Stations. (C) Under the old Act, i. e. Motor Vehicles act, 1939, the only authority, which was given the power to issue certificates of fitness, was the Motor Vehicle Inspector of the area. To reduce the burden of Motor Vehicle inspectors, the Parliament framed a provision in the Rules, providing the said power to two authorities. Under Section 56 (1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Authorized Testing Stations were created to issue certificates of fitness, apart from the motor Vehicle Inspectors. The State Government, having vested the power with the authorized Testing Stations to issue certificates of fitness under Section 56 (2), cannot compel the authorized Testing Stations to get the countersignature of the Motor Vehicle inspectors, as the Motor Vehicle Inspectors is alternative authority. If such a condition is put, it will amount to defeating the purpose of introducing the new section in the act, 1988, by the Parliament, providing for two authorities empowering them to issue fitness certificates in order to reduce the burden of Motor Vehicle Inspectors, who were the only authority under the old Act. ;