IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15249 of 2009 1. NAWAL KISHORE SINGH S/O LATE DANI SINGH VILL.- AMBA, P.O.- AMBA, P.S.- TEGHARA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, advocate For the State: Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, GA 10 Mr. Zaki Haider, advocate ------------- 5 21-12-2009 Heard the parties. The petitioner has preferred this public interest litigation to challenge the legality and validity of order of the Transport Commissioner, Bihar, Patna contained in letter no. 4765 dated 29-09-2009 (annexure-2) on the ground that in paragraph 4 of the said letter after mentioning the fee which shall be charged under Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 a further provision has been made that besides prescribed fee for conducting test of a vehicle for grant and renewal of certificate for fitness and the fee for grant or renewal of certificate of fitness for a motor vehicle, the testing stations may charge extra amount by way of service charges from the vehicle owner. On going through the provisions of Rule 81 aforesaid, it is clear that the statutory rules cover fee for taking test as well as for grant or renewal of certificate of fitness and the power being vested in the testing stations licensed for the purpose by the 2 Transport Department, to levy the extra fee by way of service charges is beyond the statutory provisions and the scheme provided under the Motor Vehicles Acts and Rules. Earlier the fee for testing the vehicles for fitness used to go to the concerned department under appropriate heads because the service was being rendered by the said department through its officials. Now the said service appears to have been outsourced to licensed service stations. In that situation the testing stations will have to be given either the full amount of fee which the department earlier used to get for conducting the fitness test or a part of the same dependant upon nature of agreement or terms of license as may be finalized by the authorities of the Transport Department. The petitioner or this court, at present, is not concerned whether the testing stations will get the prescribed fee for testing in totality or a part of it. That is the concern of the departmental authorities. Only concern of the petitioner is that the vehicle owners should not be asked to pay the testing fee two times once to the department as per the Rules and the other to the testing stations as per their demand. We are of the considered view that grant of power to the testing stations by the impugned decision to levy the additional fee for testing the motor vehicle for the purpose of fitness is without any authority of law. That provision is, therefore, struck down as ultra vires. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. It is made clear that this court has not expressed its 3 mind as to the terms and conditions under which testing shall be done by the licensed testing centers. The testing centers will be free to raise their demands before the concerned department which shall be looked into in accordance with law. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)