Levy Of Additional Fee For Renewal Of Driving License & Registration Certificate Of Vehicle Is Not A Penalty: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court held that levying additional fee for renewal of driving license, renewal of registration certificate of a vehicle, change of residence, and transfer of ownership of vehicle is not a penalty.
The Court was deciding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by ‘K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha, a public trust and a writ petition filed by Mumbai Bus Malak Sangathana, an organization raising common issues of law and facts.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S. Doctor observed, “We, thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion conclude that Section 211 of the parent Act, if interpreted appropriately, vests power with the Central Government to make Rules providing for levy of additional fee for processing delayed applications for certain purposes such as for seeking renewal of driving license, renewal of registration certificate of a vehicle, change of residence and transfer of ownership of vehicle. We also have no hesitation to hold that the levy of additional fee in this case, is in no manner a penalty, either directly or in disguise.”
Advocates Vaibhav Kulkarni and Suhas Deokar appeared for the petitioners while Senior Advocate R.V. Govilkar and Government Pleader P.P. Kakade appeared for the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The challenge was laid to the provisions contained in Rule 32 and Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (1989 Rules) to the extent these Rules provide for levy of additional fee in respect of renewal of driving license for which application is made after the grace period as also levy of additional fee for renewal of certificate of registration in respect of motor cycles and certain other classes of non-transport vehicles.
Challenge was also made to charge of additional fee in case of delay in submission of “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) for transfer of ownership of motorcycle and other vehicles and also to levy on delay in submitting NOC for change of residence. The issues that arose for consideration in the petitions were:
(a) Whether levy of additional fee by the impugned provision is beyond the power of the Central Government under Section 211 of the parent Act?
(ii) Whether the additional fee levied by the impugned provisions is a penalty in disguise?
The High Court in view of the above issues noted, “We have already held that the phrase “for any other purpose or matter involving the rendering of any service” covers processing the delayed application seeking renewal of driving license or renewal of registration certificate or application for change of residence or transfer of ownership of vehicle and the authorities under the Act render service for which additional fee can be charged. Even otherwise, as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam, as per the latest trend in the development of constitutional jurisprudence the distinction between a fee and a tax has almost lost its ground. Accordingly, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam (supra).”
The Court referred to the judgment in the case of Sona Chandi Oal Committee and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 2 SCC 345, in which it was held that the traditional concept of quid pro quo in a fee has undergone considerable transformation and that so far as regulatory fee is concerned, the services to be rendered is not a condition precedent and the same does not lose the character of a fee provided the fee so charged is not excessive.
“It is not the case set up by the Petitioners that the impugned provisions provide for charging excessive additional fee. The additional fee being charged is for the purpose of processing delayed applications seeking renewal of driving license, registration certificate of vehicles, change of residence and transfer of ownership of vehicles and in our opinion, such acts are regulatory in nature in the sense that the same regulate plying of vehicles by trained and well-equipped drivers and those acts also regulate registration of motor vehicles to ensure their fitness for being plied on the roads and other related subjects”, it said.
The Court remarked that penalty is a deterrent and in this case, levy of additional fee as prescribed under the provisions of the 1989 Rules cannot be said to be any kind of deterrence. It added that by providing a provision for consideration of delayed applications for renewal of driving license, registration certificate of vehicle, change of residence and transfer of ownership of vehicle etc., the 1989 Rules provide a facility to the vehicle owners or drivers to seek renewal of registration of their vehicles and driving licence beyond the time limit prescribed for the said purpose and hence, charge of additional fee, not being a deterrent on any count, cannot be said to be a penalty.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the PIL and writ petition.
Cause Title- ‘K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:15632-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Vaibhav Kulkarni, Ruturaj Bathe, Mrunal Surana, and Suhas Deokar.
Respondents: Senior Advocate R.V. Govilkar, Government Pleader P.P. Kakade, Additional Government Pleader O.A. Chandurkar, AGP R.A. Salunkhe, Advocates D.P. Singh and Shaba Khan.
