Power to levy fee

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. The State of Madhya Pradesh Transport Department Secretary vs Rakesh Sethi

   Supreme Court of India 26 Aug 2020 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The State Government has the constitutional and statutory authority to prescribe fees for the reservation and allotment of specific registration marks to motor vehicles under Rule 55A of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. This authority derives from: (1) Section 41(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which creates a two-step process of Central allotment of series and State assignment of specific numbers; (2) Section 65(1) of the Act, which grants the State general power to make rules for carrying into effect the provisions of the registration chapter; (3) Section 211 of the Act, which is a residual provision granting power to the State to levy fees for services rendered, notwithstanding the absence of express provision, provided the State is empowered to make rules on that subject; and (4) the principle that when a central enactment clothes the state with the power to perform a function, an implicit power to charge a reasonable fee for that function must be read into the state's power. The assignment of specific registration numbers is a distinct service for which the State can legitimately charge a fee, as it involves administrative work and caters to public demand for auspicious and numerologically significant numbers. The power to prescribe fees for registration under Section 41(2) relates only to the general registration process, not to the assignment of specific numbers. Rule 55A is therefore valid and within the State's authority.

   On this section: Central provision in the Court's analysis; grants power to both Central and State Governments to levy fees for services rendered, notwithstanding the absence of express provision, provided the Government is empowered to make rules on that subject; the Court held this is a residual provision covering services not expressly enumerated

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Jantia Hill Truck Owners Association vs S. A. Coal Dealer & Truck Owner Assn

   Supreme Court of India 10 Jul 2009 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Where a statute confers powers on an authority to do certain acts or exercise power in respect of certain matters subject to rules, the exercise of power conferred by the statute does not depend on the existence of rules unless the statute expressly provides for the same. The expression 'subject to the rules' only means 'in accordance with the rules, if any'. If rules are framed, the powers so conferred could be exercised in accordance with these rules. But if no rules are framed, there is no void and the authority is not precluded from exercising the power conferred by the statute. A statute that is workable even without framing of Rules must be given effect to, as the law does not envisage a vacuum. The State Government is empowered to issue executive orders for matters required to be prescribed by Rules if the statute is workable without them, subject to the condition that such orders do not infringe upon the rights of citizens.

   On this section: Empowers Central and State Governments to make rules providing for levy of fees for various services; cited to support State's authority to charge fees

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.