No additional fee for delayed licence renewal, registration

Additional fee for submission of NOC for transfer of vehicles also struck down

Published: 05th April 2017 01:56 AM  |   Last Updated: 05th April 2017 03:43 AM   |  A+A-

By Express News Service

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has struck down a notification levying additional fee as penalty by the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for delayed renewal of driving licence, registration and submission of NOC for ownership transfer for motor vehicles.
A division Bench of Justices S Nagamuthu and Anita Sumanth issued the directive while partly allowing the PILs from various associations of drivers, driving schools, auto drivers and the lorry owners federation to declare the amendments to Rules 32 and 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules increasing the fees as invalid, illegal, ultra virus of the Constitution.
The power of the government in light of Section 211 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act is to levy a fee for services offered by the officers or the authorities. The fee prescribed is thus designated to be commensurate with the services rendered.

“We fail to see any justification for the levy of an additional fee as penalty when there is no change in the nature of service rendered by the authority under the Act, particularly in the absence of any statutory backing for the same. The Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicle rules at present only contain a provision authorising the levy of fee and nothing more. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the levy of additional fee under various heads as per the impugned notification is without authority and such levy of additional fee is, therefore, liable to be struck down,” the judges said.
The judges added that they could not lose sight of the position that the service rendered by the authorities under Section 211 of the MV Act would remain the same irrespective of the period of delay in compliance of the statutory provisions. Thus there was no justification for the levy of penalty over and above the fee itself. The present proposal for the levy of a fine was clearly without requisite authority, the Bench said and struck down the notification amending the rule 32 and rule 81 of the Act to impose the additional fee.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp