Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds 15-Year Age Limit For Stage Carriage Permits, Dismisses Bus Owners’ Plea

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by the Nimar Bus Owners Association challenging the legality of a rule that bars stage carriage permits for vehicles older than 15 years from their year of manufacture, holding that the State Government is competent to prescribe such conditions for the grant of permits in the interest of passenger safety and public convenience.

A Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi passed the order while hearing a petition filed by the Nimar Bus Owners Association through its President Vaibhav Singh Tomar. The association had challenged sub-clause (iii) of sub-rule (1-A) of Rule 77 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and also sought quashing of an order dated November 7, 2025 and a circular dated November 14, 2025 issued by the authorities.

The impugned provision provides that no stage carriage permit shall be granted for any route to a vehicle that has completed 15 years from the year of manufacture. The petitioners contended that the State Government lacked the competence to prescribe the “life” of a vehicle, arguing that such power lies exclusively with the Central Government under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Senior Advocate A.S. Garg, appearing for the petitioners along with Advocate Abhay Kumar Jain, argued that Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with registration of vehicles and provides that a certificate of registration is valid for a period prescribed by the Central Government and is renewable thereafter. It was submitted that Section 59 of the Act specifically empowers the Central Government to fix the age limit of motor vehicles and therefore the State Government cannot indirectly determine the operational life of a vehicle by refusing stage carriage permits after a particular age.

The petitioners further argued that the impugned rule had been framed in purported exercise of powers under Sections 65, 96 and 211 of the Act, but these provisions do not confer authority upon the State Government to prescribe the life of vehicles. On this basis, they contended that the rule as well as the subsequent administrative directions were beyond jurisdiction.

Opposing the plea, Additional Advocate General Rahul Sethi and Government Advocate Pradyumna Kibe appearing for the State submitted that the rule was valid and had already been upheld by earlier decisions of the High Court. They pointed out that Rule 77(1-A) was first inserted through a notification dated November 24, 2010 and later amended in 2015 reducing the permissible age of stage carriage vehicles from 20 years to 15 years.

The State also argued that the petition was filed after a significant delay, noting that the amendment had been in force for several years and had been accepted by transport operators in practice. According to the State, the challenge was barred by delay and was also substantively untenable in light of binding precedents of the Court.

The Bench agreed with the State’s submissions and relied heavily on earlier Division Bench judgments of the same High Court, particularly the decision in Shaheed Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which had examined the same issue.

Referring to the earlier ruling, the Court observed that the power of the Central Government under Section 59 relates to fixing the overall “life” of a motor vehicle for the purpose of registration, whereas the State Government’s power under Sections 72 and 96 pertains to regulating the grant of stage carriage permits and prescribing conditions for such permits.

Quoting from the earlier judgment, the bench noted that the rule merely prescribes an age limit beyond which a vehicle cannot be used as a stage carriage, and does not prohibit the vehicle from being used for other lawful purposes. The court reiterated that the condition has been framed “looking to the safety and convenience of the travelling passengers.”

The bench also pointed out that during the course of hearing it had asked counsel for the petitioners whether the permits issued to members of the association themselves contained conditions regarding the age of the vehicle. On instructions, counsel conceded that such a condition existed in the permits.

In light of this admission and the binding precedents cited by the State, the court concluded that the rule prescribing the age limit for stage carriage permits falls squarely within the State Government’s rule-making powers under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Holding that the provision was intra vires and legally valid, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the order and circular issued by the authorities. The bench concluded that the condition regarding vehicle age for stage carriage permits is justified as a measure intended to ensure safer and more reliable public transport services.

Case Title: Nimar Bus Owners Association Through its President Vaibhav Singh Tomar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: March 12, 2026

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi