IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 7000 of 2008 1 Rajesh Kumar, son of Sri Tanik Prasad Singh, At A/33, P C Colony, P S - Kankerbagh, Patna 2 Shambhu Nath Upadhya, son of Sri Triloki Nath Upadhya, Chiraniatan, P S - Kankerbagh, Dist - Patna 3 Ramesh Chandra Pd Singh, son of late Balmat Singh, At Mainpura Milke Nalapar, P S - Pataliputra, Dist - Patna 4 Santosh Kumar, son of Sri Bharat Sharma, At - Vill - Ganudhar, P S - Ghoshi, Dist - Jehanabad, A/p Bakerganj, Patna 5 Dhananjay Kumar, son of Sri Chandeshwar Prasad, At - Kurji More, P O + P S - Patna, Dist - Patna - Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Bihar through Secretary, Deptt of Transport, Govt of Bihar, Patna 2 The Transport Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Patna through Secretary 4 The Chairman, South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Patna - Respondents *** For the petitioners : M/s Badri Narayan Singh, Sheopujan Singh, Sanjay Kr Pandit & Randhir Kr Singh, Advocates For the respondents : Smt Nilu Agarwal, G A X & Jaki Haider, J C to G A X *** 3 25.11.2008 The petitioners operate a public service vehicle and have a stage carriage permit. The permits were granted on different dates and were valid for a period of five years. In other words, the permits were valid for periods upto 2009, 2010, 2011. The petitioners were plying their vehicles on the strength of said stage carriage permits granted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A decision was taken by South Bihar Regional Transport Authority constituted under the said Act after the permits were granted to the petitioners restricting the life of motor vehicles under the permits to fifteen years. In other words, the decision was that the vehicle owners, who were operating vehicles which had crossed the age of fifteen years since original 2 registration, they were required to replace the vehicles under those permits by newer vehicles. Effectively on petitioners not replacing their old vehicle with newer vehicle, the petitioners’ permits were cancelled. This brought the petitioners to this Court. Shri Badri Narayan Singh, learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submits that if no stage carriage permit is issued to motor vehicle which is stage carriage then the motor vehicle becomes a useless commodity. In other words, the effect of denial of permit to such vehicles would be their apparent death. This, it is submitted, cannot be done by authorities under the Act except as provided in the Act itself. Reference is made to Section 41 (7) and Section 59 of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the authorities are not cancelling either the certificate of registration or the certificate of fitness of vehicle. They are merely denying permits to old vehicles. The petitioners, it is submitted by the respondents, have no right to keep plying old vehicles which causes not only pollution but inconvenience to passengers. The issue, in my view, is thus whether a life of a motor vehicle can be fixed by the Regional Transport Authority or not. Having heard the parties and with their consent, the writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Prior to the enactment and enforcement of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under the then existing Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, there were no provisions with regard to age limit of motor vehicle. Such provisions appear to have been introduced. Such a provision was introduced for the first time in the Act that is by the 3 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. I may notice two such provisions. One is Section 41 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the other is Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 : 41. Registration, how to be made. … … … … (7) A certificate of registration issued under sub-section (3), whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in respect of a motor vehicle, other than a transport vehicle, shall, subject to the provisions contained in this Act, be valid only for a period of fifteen years from the date of issue of such certificate and shall be renewable. 59. Power to fix age limit of motor vehicle.-(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the public safety, convenience and objects of this Act, by notification in the official Gazette, specify the life of a motor vehicle reckoned from the date of its manufacture, after the expiry of which the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder. Provided that the Central Government may specify different ages for different classes or different types of motor vehicle. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub- section (1), the Central Government may, having regard to the purpose of motor vehicle, such as, display or use for the purposes of a demonstration in any exhibition, use for the purposes of technical research or taking part in a vintage car rally, by notification in the official Gazette, exempt, by a general or special order, subject to such conditions as may be specified in such notification, any class or type of motor vehicle from the operation of sub-section (1) for the purpose to be stated in the notification. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sec 56, no prescribed authority or authorized testing station shall grant a certificate of fitness to a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of any notification issued under sub-section (1). 4 A reference to the two provisions of the Act would show that Section 41 (7) restricts the life of a motor vehicle other than transport vehicle to fifteen years from the date of original certificate of registration but at the same time makes it renewable. This provision clearly predicates a life span of the original certificate of registration of fifteen years but is renewable. Then we come to Section 59. Section 59 authorizes the Central Government to issue notification fixing the age limit considering the safety, convenience and the objects of the Act. Thus seen, the Legislature have authorized the Central Government and Central Government alone to fix the age limit of a motor vehicle while fixing which the public safety, convenience and object of the Act has to be kept in mind. Needless to say that inconvenience because of age or pollution is considerations which squarely fall within this Section and are matters relevant for action to be taken by the Central Government. In my view, the two sections aforesaid clearly show that Legislature delegated the authority only to the Central Government and Central Government alone to take a decision in the matter. If that be so then no other authority can do what Central Government alone is authorized to do and that too indirectly. It is well established principle of statutory interpretation that when a specific power to do an act has been conferred on specific authority then it is that authority alone who can do the exercise in the manner prescribed and all other modes are impliedly prohibited. I may refer to the principle as noticed and affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Hukam Chand Shyam Lal - Versus- Union of India & Others, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 789 5 wherein in paragraph-18, their Lordships have held thus : 18. It is well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is of a drastic nature … … … Thus seen what was delegated exclusively by the Legislature to the Central Government cannot be usurped by the Regional Authority even under regulatory power. That is not what the Legislature contemplated. Thus, in my view, learned counsel for the petitioners is correct that such a decision was incompetently taken by the Regional Transport Authority. He further submits and rightly so in my view that the public carriage motor vehicles are subject to grant of certificate of fitness which is valid for one year. They are, thus, liable to be tested every year for its roadworthiness which includes its pollution emission standards. If it is otherwise fit to be certified as roadworthy then merely because it is fifteen years old or more cannot make it a piece of junk. To the submission of the State Counsel that is only the permit that is being cancelled not the registration and, therefore, the petitioners should not make a grievance, the answer is simple. If a stage carriage has valid registration and a valid certificate of fitness, it can still not be used in any manner except as a show piece, unless it has a valid road permit for plying granted under the Act. Once road permit is withdrawn then notwithstanding registration or certificate of fitness the vehicle becomes junk and a useless piece of property. It would amount to depriving petitioners of their property or usage thereof without authority of law and that would clearly violate Article 300A of the Constitution of 6 India. In view of the facts aforesaid, the decision of the Regional Transport Authority restricting the life of vehicles to be used under any permit to fifteen years cannot be sustained in law and has to be set aside and is set aside accordingly. The consequence would be that petitioners’ permit could not have been cancelled on the ground that they had not substituted their vehicle with a newer vehicle. However, I may observe that if the permit is granted with a condition that under the permit the vehicle would be a vehicle which has not completed fifteen years of age. That may be a different matter and would require a fresh consideration because the authorities do have power to impose conditions which are not in consistent with the Act. In view of the facts aforesaid, the writ application is allowed. The orders by which the permits of the petitioners have been cancelled are set aside. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)