'We Must Modernize' : Karnataka High Court Refuses To Stay FASTag Implementation

The Karnataka High Court on Friday refused to stay the notification issued to amend the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, by which fitment of FASTag has been made compulsory for all vehicles and a valid FASTag is mandatory while getting a new 3rd Party Insurance. A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said "Someday we must modernize." Referring to the present COVID-19 situation it said "In the present circumstance should it not be welcomed? People don't need to handle notes which may be handled by 50 other people in a day." Amended Central Motor Vehicle Rules:In the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the principal rules), in Rule 47, in sub-rule (1), after clause (i), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:- "(ia) proof of fitment of FASTag specified in Rule 138A;". In the principal rules, for the Rule 138A, the following rule shall be substituted, namely:- "138A. Fitment of FASTag.- (1) Categories M and N motor vehicles manufactured on and after the 1st July, 2017, shall be fitted with FASTag having such specifications as may be specified by the Central Government:Provided that in case of any vehicle which is sold in the form of drive-away-chassis without windscreen, such FASTag shall be fitted in the windscreen by the dealer at the time of providing such windscreen.(2) The fitment of FASTag shall be verified by the registering authority at the time of registration.Explanation – For the purposes of this rule, FASTag means an onboard unit (transponder) or any such device fitted on the front windscreen of the vehicle. The application for stay was filed by petitioner Geetha Mishra who has moved the court challenging provisions of the National Highways Authority Act (NHAI) and the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules. Advocate G R Mohan appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Notification dated 06-11-2020 is in violation of the Fundamental Right of people who use Four Wheeler within the City and who may not go outside the city or use the National Highway. The bench in its order noted that "Perusal of writ petition shows that challenge is to validity of section 8 (a) of NHAI act and also to validity of NHAI 3 (Determination of rates and collection) Rules. By filing IA the applicant in the petitioner is seeking stay of operation of the amended CMV and notification issued pursuant to amended rules. There is absolutely no challenge to the amendment made to the said rule of 1989 in the main petition." It added "An interim relief can be granted in aid of final relief. In this case there is absolutely no challenge to amended rules of 1989." The court also turned down the reliance made by the petition in a case of the Bombay High Court, by which a notice has been issued in a petition. The court said "Even the said order is irrelevant as in the petition there is no challenge to the validity of the amendment to the rule of 1989. Hence the application is misconceived and the same is rejected." The court will now take up the case on April 9, when it will fix a date for final hearing of the main matters.

'We Must Modernize' : Karnataka High Court Refuses To Stay FASTag Implementation

Mustafa Plumber

Tags