38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, May 05, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Imposition of Special Fees for Allotment of Fancy Numbers is Contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act 1998, says Amicus Curiae to SC

By Shreya Tulavi      21 August, 2020 08:20 PM      0 Comments
Imposition of Special Fees for Allotment of Fancy Numbers is Contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act 1998, says Amicus Curiae to SC

In the matter concerning payment of special fee against allotment of special registration numbers for vehicles, senior advocate Manoj Swarup has submitted before the Supreme Court in front of the division bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, that the state governments are not empowered to charge additional fees for the registration unless given in the Motor Vehicles Act.

The written submission has been filed against the Madhya Pradesh government opposing the state appeal and stating that the notification issued by the government is ultra vires Section 41 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998. He submitted that section 41 of the MV act contemplates application for registration of Motor Vehicles and lays down steps until final registration, including the registration fees. The same stipulates any fees that may be charged for allotment as is done by the state government as given in section 41(6) of the act.

Regarding the fees for the attachment of other documents and information, Swarup submitted that it has been clearly mentioned in section 41(2) for the fees incurred during the process by the central government and the state government does not have the power to levy any fees apart from that. It can be seen that - State government has assumed to itself the function of allotment.

He further enumerated that the rule-making power of the central and the state government has been clearly defined. It has been pointed out in Sub-section (o) of Section 64 (Power of Central Government to make rules) of the Act specifically contemplates the power of the Central government to determine the fees and other issues. Further, the provision is specifically excluded from Section 65 (Power of State Government to make rules) of the Act, thus indicating that the powers given to the centre are not given to the state also.

The written submission also contained that there is no specific authorization in act to levy fees in the name of registration of special numbers. The state government cannot charge the vehicle owners in the name of special numbers. However, in section 64(h) and 65(k) of the Act allows the state government to prescribe fees but that too only under certain circumstances, which nowhere relate to the registration fees.

Similarly, it states that the reference of Section 211 of the Act has been submitted that the same is placed in Chapter XIV of the Act, titled "Miscellaneous", as against section41(2) of the act. It is important to note that this additional fee goes against the objective of the Motor Vehicles Act. This act was enacted with the objective of bringing a uniform regime throughout the country. However, by the imposition of fees by the Madhya Pradesh government the entire objective of the act is demolished.



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

prior-notice-mandatory-before-property-demolition-section-405-power-not-absolute-andhra-pradesh-hc
Trending Judiciary
Prior Notice Mandatory Before Property Demolition, Section 405 Power Not Absolute: Andhra Pradesh HC [Read Order]

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules demolition without notice illegal; Section 405 is enabling, not absolute, and must follow natural justice.

04 May, 2026 04:11 PM
sc-dismisses-tmc-plea-on-exclusion-of-state-officials-as-counting-supervisors-records-eci-assurance
Trending Judiciary
SC Dismisses TMC Plea on Exclusion of State Officials as Counting Supervisors, Records ECI Assurance

Supreme Court declines TMC plea on counting supervisors, records ECI assurance to follow its circular in West Bengal Assembly elections.

04 May, 2026 05:07 PM

TOP STORIES

private-neighbourhood-schools-cannot-refuse-admission-to-students-allotted-by-state-under-rte-act-on-ground-of-eligibility-dispute-sc
Trending Judiciary
Private Neighbourhood Schools Cannot Refuse Admission to Students Allotted by State Under RTE Act on Ground of Eligibility Dispute: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules private schools must admit RTE-allotted students without delay; eligibility disputes cannot be grounds to deny admission under Article 21A.

29 April, 2026 11:55 AM
meghalaya-murder-case-shillong-court-grants-bail-to-accused-wife-over-failure-to-communicate-grounds-of-arrest
Trending Judiciary
Meghalaya Murder Case: Shillong Court Grants Bail to Accused Wife Over Failure to Communicate Grounds of Arrest

Shillong court grants bail to Sonam Raghuvanshi in Meghalaya murder case, citing failure to communicate arrest grounds and violation of Article 22(1).

29 April, 2026 12:55 PM
court-sentences-bjp-mla-nitesh-rane-to-one-months-imprisonment-for-humiliating-engineer-by-making-him-walk-through-muddy-water-in-public
Trending Executive
Court Sentences BJP MLA Nitesh Rane to One Month’s Imprisonment for Humiliating Engineer by Making Him Walk Through Muddy Water in Public [Read Judgment]

Sindhudurg court sentences Nitesh Rane to 1 month jail under IPC Sec 504 for forcing engineer to walk through muddy water; others acquitted.

29 April, 2026 01:53 PM
bombay-hc-adjourns-9-year-defamation-suit-to-2046-calls-it-an-ego-fight-between-senior-citizens
Trending Judiciary
Bombay HC Adjourns 9-Year Defamation Suit to 2046, Calls It an “Ego Fight” Between Senior Citizens [Read Order]

Bombay High Court adjourns 9-year defamation suit to 2046, calling it an “ego fight” between senior citizens and declining priority hearing.

29 April, 2026 02:02 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email