1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to Rule 7.14A under Chapter VII of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (in short the Rules of 1990), as amended by the Notification dated 15.2.2005.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Bharat Vyas submits that by way of amendment in the rules, the definition of "Sleeper Coach" has been given, which is beyond the competence of the State Government. As per the definition given under the amended rule, a sleeper coach means a motor vehicle covered by a tourist permit. The use of the word "Tourist Permit" compels every vehicle to get tourist permit and necessarily a registration for it. The subject of registration of a motor vehicle cannot be legislated by the State Government. It is in the domain of the Central Government. In view of the above, amending Rules of 2005 are without authority of law thus, it deserves to be struck down.

3. A reference of Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short the Rules of 1989) has been given which provides for application for registration of motor vehicle. The Central Government, by exercising its powers under section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (In short the Act of 1988), framed the Rules for registration. A reference of Section 65 has also been given to show as to what power remains with the State Government to frame the Rules. Section 65 of the Act of 1988 gives power to State Government to frame Rules on the subjects other than covered by Section 64 of the Act. The State Government could not have legislated for registration of vehicle as tourist vehicle or to obtain tourist permit. By virtue of the amended provision, a compulsion has been made for a motor vehicle to be covered by a tourist permit.

4. The compulsion to seek registration of motor vehicle as tourist permit is otherwise violative of Article 13 of the Constitution of India. The fundamental right of the petitioner to ply a motor vehicle has been violated by putting a compulsion to get registration with tourist permit. In view of the above, even the fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed.

5. It is further stated that apart from infringement of fundamental right of the petitioner, there exist repugnancy in the law enacted by the Central Government and the State Government. By exercising power under Section 64 of the Act of 1988, the Central Government framed the Rules of 1989. Those Rules cover the issue of registration. The Rules of 1990, framed by the State Government, do not regulate the subject of registration, but by virtue of amendment in Rule 7.14A under Chapter VII of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, the registration has been made compulsory for sleeper Buses with tourist permit. It is in conflict with the Rules of 1989. By virtue of Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India, what will prevail is the central legislation. It is in view of the repugnancy in two legislations. A declaration may be made that registration of the motor vehicle cannot be governed by the State Government, rather, it would be governed by the Rules of 1989. Learned counsel has given reference of judgments to support his arguments on the competence of the State Government to legislate the subject of registration.

1. Rani Drig Raj Kuer v. Raja Sri Amar Krishna Narain Singh reported in AIR 1960 SC 444 .

2. L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. The Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala Cantt. reported in AIR 1961 SC 200 .

3. Ram Autar Singh Bhadauria v. Ram Gopal Singh & Ors reported in AIR 1975 SC 2182 .

4. Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel reported in AIR 1985 SC 1416 .

5. Inder Kumar Goyal v. State of Rajasthan reported in RLW 1992 (1) 206.

6. Satheedevi v. Prasanna & Anr. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 622 .

7. Ramesh Birch & Ors v. Union of India & Ors reported in 1989 Supp (1) SCC 430 .

On Article 13 of the Constitution of India

Sardar Sarup Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors reported in AIR 1959 SC 860 .

On Article 254 of the Constitution of India

(i) Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co. reported in 1976 AIR 1031.

(ii) M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India reported in AIR 1979 SC 898 .

(iii) Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Prades & Ors. reported in AIR 1959 SC 648 .

6. In the light of judgments referred to above, prayer is to hold amending provisions of Rule 7.14A under Chapter VII of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India and otherwise repugnant to the Rules of 1989.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners elaborated the facts of the case. It is submitted that petitioners purchased a vehicle in the year 2005. The registration of the vehicle was got done immediately thereupon. In the type of body, it was shown to camper van (sleeper coach) deluxe. The petitioners then obtained the permit from the State Government. It was All India Tourist Permit. The petitioner was not willing to take All India Tourist Permit. It was taken under duress and compulsion. In fact the petitioner was left with no option but to apply for All India Tourist Permit to ply the vehicle otherwise it would have remained stationary. The State Government imposed tax treating it to be a sleeper coach. It even seized the vehicle.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the purpose of Chapter VII of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 is quite different than taken by the respondents. A specific reference of the title of Chapter VII has been given which is for construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. The State Government could have legislated on the subject covered under Chapter VII and not beyond that. A reference of pre-amending provisions of Rule 7.14 under Chapter VII of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 and other provisions under Chapter VII has been given. It is to show purpose of providing certain features in the mother vehicle which may include even for gap between the seats and many other feature. By way of amendment in the Rules, the State Government has gone beyond the frame work of Chapter VII of the Rules of 1990 as amended in the year 2005 thus, for the aforesaid reason also, the impugned Notification deserves to be struck down.

9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and scanned the matter carefully.

10. The petitioners have challenged Notification dated 15.2.2005, by which, amendment under Chapter VII of the Rules of 1990 was made. It is by inserting Rule 7.14A under Chapter VII of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990. It would be gainful to refer the aforesaid provision and is quoted thus :

"7.14A Sleeper Coach:- (1) Sleeper Coach shall mean a Motor Vehicle covered by a tourist permit, designed or constructed to provide facility to either sleep or sit or both having two tier, arrangement with berth necessarily on the upper tier shall have 1 X 1 or 2 X 1 berth arrangement. The lower tier may have either of the following arrangement :

(i) Having berth arrangement of 1 X 1 or 2 X 1 berth along the chassis.

(ii) Having seating arrangement of 2 x 1 or 1 X 1 seats across the Chassis

(iii) Any other arrangement subject to approval by State Transport Authority.

2. Every Sleeper Coach shall conform to the following specification namely:-

(I) The length of each birth shall not be less than 182 cm.

(ii) The width of each birth shall not be less than 60.96 cm.

(iii) The vehicle shall have a front entrance-cum-exit door on left side operated by driver attendant equipped with assist rails in front of the front axe.

(iv) The over all height of the vehicle shall have a maximum of 3.8 meter including A.C. Hood

(v) The interior height of the vehicle shall have maximum of 2.15 meter. (headroom)

(vi) Roof ceiling shall be provided with soft material of equivalent material like ABS plastic to prevent impact.

(vii) The width of gangway shall not be less than 60.96 cm.

(viii) The thickness of upper berth shall not be less than 65 mm and should be covered with neat fabric.

(ix) The clear headroom for seating passengers shall not be less than 850mm.

(x) The clear headroom for the upper berth shall not be less than 650 mm.

(xi) Optional chain in the middle or longitudinal guard between the two chains shall be provided for upper berth.

(xii) Ladder steps for upper berth shall be provided and it shall be fixed at a minimum height of 250 mm and the distance between each steps shall be 300 mm.

(xiii) An assist handle be provided for comfortable occupation of the upper berth at a convenient height.

(xiv) No seat shall be permitted to be fitted in the gangway.

(xv) There shall also be sufficient space underneath the lower berth for keeping the luggage. Wire ropes are to be provided for fastening the luggage.

(xvi) Hatracks inside the salon shall not be permitted.

(xvii) The vehicle shall have weveller suspension or air suspension or combination of both.

(xviii) Emergency exit shall be provided at the rear.

(xix) Reflective tap of canary yellow colour of 50 mm width shall be provided at rear and front side at skirt level on bumper.

(xx) Each berth shall be provided with neat fabric covering which shall be capable of being kept in a clean and sanitary condition.

(xxi) Fire extinguisher shall be provided.

(xxii) First aid box with necessary medicines shall be provided and shall be checked every fortnight for its contents and the validity of medicine.

(xxiii) Guard to be provided for lower berths inline with upper berth with chain.

(xxiv) Safely guards covered with soft material on either side of the upper berths shall be provided.

(xxv) Magazine pouches shall be provided at convenient location. Water bottle holders shall also be provided.

(xxvi) Drinking water shall be provided with ice box.

(xxvii) Night lamps preferable in blue colour shall be provided in the gangway.

(xxviii) Individual reading light at convenient location for each shall be provided.

(xxix) The material used in the construction shall be provided for each passenger reasonably of comfortable quality.

3. Nothing contained in Sub-rule (1) & (2) shall apply upto two year a vehicle already registered as a sleeper coach on or before from the date of coming into force of Rajasthan Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Rules 2005"

11. The challenge to the amending Rule has been made on many grounds and, out of which, the first ground is about competence of the State Government to legislate on the subject of registration of the vehicle. It lies in the domain of the Central Government under the Act of 1988. The Central Government even framed the Rules in the year 1989. The registration of vehicle is governed by Rule 47 of the Rules of 1989. The issue of competence has been raised even in reference to Article 13 of the Constitution of India and otherwise issue of repugnancy has been raised in reference to Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India. To deal with those issues, it would be necessary to refer Chapter VII so as to find out the subject covered by the aforesaid Chapter and, accordingly, Title of the Chapter VII alongwith Rule 7 (1) are quoted herein :

Chapter VII

Construction, Equipment and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles

7.1 General rules regulation of construction etc. of Motor Vehicle.- (1) No person shall use and no person shall cause or allow to be used or to be in any public place any motor vehicle which does not comply with the rules contained in Chapter V of the Act, and rules made under this Chapter by Central/State Government or with any order thereunder made by Competent Authority to pass such order.

(2) Nothing in this rule shall apply to a motor vehicle which has been damaged in an accident while at the place of the accident or to a vehicle so damaged or otherwise rendered defective while being removed to the reasonable nearest place or repair or disposal.

(3) Provided that where a motor vehicle can no longer remain under the effective control of the person driving the same it shall not be moved except by towing.

12. Chapter VII of the Rules of 1990 is basically for the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. The amending provision of Rule 7.14A is to provide for construction and equipment of the sleeper coach. It provides as to how the sleeper coach would be constructed and accordingly length of each Berth so as to width and gap between the seats etc. The rules aforesaid are brought for the purpose given under Chapter VII of the Rules of 1990 and not beyond the aforesaid.

13. The petitioners construed it to rule requiring a registration with tourist permit though we do not find the use of the word "Registration" therein. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn intference due to use of the words "Tourist Permit". We find that under the Act of 1988, Chapter V provides about the control of transport vehicles and, therein, different categories of permits have been specified. Section 67 of the Act of 1988 gives power to the State Government to control road transport and, accordingly, to issue permit.

14 It is not in dispute that All India Tourist Permits in the present case have been issued by the State Government though it is said to be under duress. The petitioners have pleaded that All India Tourist Permit was taken under compulsion but have failed to specify as to how they were compelled to get All India Tourist Permits. The allegations are thus for the sake of it. The inference against the petitioners has to be drawn in view of the application for All India Tourist Permit and, accordingly, it was granted to the petitioners. The fact situation of the aforesaid is relevant in the context of the challenge to Rule 7.14A under Chapter VII of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990. If the petitioners, at their own, obtained registration of the vehicles followed by All India Tourist Permit and after obtaining permit of a sleeper coach, that too, in the year 2005 without any protest then the challenge to use the words "Tourist Permit" under the amended provision remains for the sake of it. It would be gainful to refer an explanation below Rule 7.14 prior to amendment, which reads as under :

"Explanation.-1. all the vehicle having the specification prescribed for vehicle of All India Permits shall be treated as Deluxe Buses.

2. If in the semi deluxe buses they are air-conditioned or provided with facility or viewing Video films shall be treated as luxury buses.

3. If ordinary bus or bus having specification of express bus and plying as a stage carriage and does not stop any place before running at least 40 kms. except of stops specially permitted by Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority as the case may be.

4. If ordinary or express buses providing night service, seats of side minimum 40 Cms. Sq. and back to back distance 40 Cms. with Sq. back above seal level 60 Cms. shall be provided."

15. The explanation provides for deluxe buses and thereunder a specific reference of All India Permit has been given. The word "Tourist Permit" is not inserted for the first time by way of amendment. The aforesaid provision cannot construe a compulsion to seek registration of a particular category, rather, the literal meaning of "sleeper coach" would be a motor vehicle covered by a tourist permit and if it is not covered then would not fall in the explanation given above. There is no direction in the amending Rules of 2005 to seek registration of vehicle in particular category.

16. The whole thrust of the argument is in reference to the legislation on the subject of registration by the State Government. The facts of the case given above and the amending Rule 7.14A under Chapter VII of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 do not show or provide for registration of the vehicle so as to hold it without the competence of the State Government. The elaborate discussion of Section 64 & 65 of the Act of 1988 read with Rule 7.14A under Chapter VII of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 would have been made if subject of registration would have governed by the amending Rules of 2005. The words used therein are "Tourist Permit" and it lies in the domain of the State.

17. In view of the above, we do not find that amending provision is without competence of the State Government, rather, it seems to be nothing but to challenge seizure of the vehicles. It was when many vehicles of the petitioners were seized on a demand raised under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules. The petitioner challenged those demands separately by maintaining writ petitions thus, we do not want to go in the issue regarding demand as otherwise a challenge to the demand has not been made in these petitions though seizure of the vehicle has been challenged.

18. It is further a fact that an application for release of the vehicle was dismissed by the competent Court for want of jurisdiction as seizure was due to non-payment of road tax. It is nothing but the demand of tax raised by the State Government treating the vehicle to be a sleeper coach and thereby categorising for taxation purpose in consonance with the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules. The outcome seems to be nothing but seizure of vehicle on account of non-payment of tax though the seizure memo does not specify the aforesaid. The petitioners have not challenged the demand in the present writ petition, but challenged the Rule 7.14A under Chapter VII of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, as amended in the year 2005. The amending rule does not relate to registration or for that any other matter than construction and maintenance given under Chapter VII of the Rules of 1990. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any repugnancy between the State and the Central Government legislations.

19. It is, no doubt, that the Rule 47 of the Rules of 1989 provides form of registration and details for registration of the vehicle has been given thereunder but so far Rule 7.14A under Chapter VII of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, as amended in the year 2005, is concerned, it does not make a reference of the registration of the vehicle thus, question of repugnancy does not arise.

20. In the light of the discussion made above, we need not to refer the judgments in reference to Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India. The discussion could have been made if we would have recorded our finding about repugnancy in two legislations.

21. Learned counsel for the petitioners has given reference of certain judgments in reference to Article 13 of the Constitution of India, but we do not find that by amendment in Rule 7.14A under Chapter VII of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, the fundamental right of the petitioners has been infringed. We have already clarified that purpose of Rule 7.14A is quite different than taken by the petitioners and otherwise it is coming out from bare perusal of the amendment itself. It gives description for construction, equipment and maintenance of the sleeper coach. The Rule 7.14A (3) further provides that sub-Rule (i) & (ii) shall not apply upto two years on a vehicle already plied as a sleeper coach on or before the date of commencement of Rajasthan Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Rules, 2005. The purpose is coming out very clearly to see all those vehicles already plied as sleeper coach would not require to adhere to the specifications brought by way of amending Rules of 2005 though relaxation is only for two years. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find infringement of right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 13 of the Constitution of India because they have not been debarred to ply the buses.

22. Taking into consideration the discussion made above, we are unable to accept any of the arguments raised by the petitioners to struck down Rule 7.14A under Chapter VII of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, as amended in the year 2005.

23. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.

24. A copy of this order be placed in each connected matter.