Bombay High Court has issued conditions for the BH series car nameplate users

The Bombay High Court recently invalidated a circular issued by Maharashtra's transport commissioner that imposed additional conditions for registering vehicles under the Bharat (BH) series. This decision came after a petition was filed by Mahendra Patil, a senior civil judge in the Maharashtra State Judicial Services, who had his application for BH series registration rejected due to this circular.

The BH series was introduced in 2021 by the Government of India to facilitate the transfer of vehicles across states and Union Territories without the need for multiple state registrations. Under the Central Motor Vehicles (Twentieth Amendment) Rules of 2021, to register a vehicle under the BH series, government employees only need to provide their official identity card.

However, the transport commissioner issued a circular in February 2024, requiring additional conditions for BH series registration, such as certificates showing office locations in other states, proof of stay in those states, and salary slips. Patil's application for BH series registration was denied because he did not meet these extra conditions, leading him to file a petition against the transport commissioner.

Also Read: National Consumer Court Orders Mahindra to Refund or Replace Faulty XUV bought in 2011

The Bombay High Court's division bench, consisting of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla, ruled that the circular was issued without legal authority and was therefore invalid. The court declared the circular illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, ordering it to be quashed. The judges stated that the transport commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to create additional rules and conditions that contradicted the Central Motor Vehicles Act.

The court directed the transport authorities to register Patil's vehicle under the BH series within one week. The bench also emphasized that the transport commissioner could not issue circulars imposing conditions that contradicted or defeated the central rules. They further noted that the commissioner had no power to impose such requirements without explicit authority from the central rules.

In response, the transport commissioner's office argued that the circular was intended to ensure compliance with the objectives of the Central Motor Vehicles Act and to prevent revenue loss. They also expressed concerns about government employees who are not typically transferred to other states seeking the benefits of BH series registration, which could increase applications and lead to a significant revenue loss.

Despite these arguments, the High Court stood firm in its decision to quash the circular, reinforcing that any additional conditions imposed by the transport commissioner were illegal and not supported by the Central Motor Vehicles Act's framework. The court's ruling clarifies the rules surrounding BH series registration and ensures that applicants are only subject to the original central guidelines, providing consistency and fairness in the registration process.