Bihar officer denied BH registration restored — Patna High Court, 2025

Case Background

The petitioner is a Judicial Officer in the Bihar Superior Judicial Service in the rank of District Judge (Entry Level). At the time of the case, he was posted as the 15th Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NIA & ATS, Bihar, Patna.

He purchased a new Mahindra XUV700 (AX7 AT) and applied for registration of the vehicle under the Bharat Series (BH-Series). BH-Series registration is a Central Government scheme intended to ease vehicle movement across States, particularly for people in transferable jobs.

On 12.06.2024, the petitioner applied for BH-Series registration before the District Transport Officer (DTO), Patna. Along with his application, he submitted all necessary documents and paid the required fees. He also provided his official identity card as a Judicial Officer, as required under the amended Central Motor Vehicles Rules.

Instead of granting BH-Series registration, the DTO, Patna issued a letter asking whether government employees like the petitioner, applying for BH-Series, would be transferred outside the State of Bihar. In response, the petitioner replied that judicial officers of Bihar are likely to be transferred or deputed outside the State.

Despite this, the DTO, Patna rejected his application by Memo/Letter No. 8712 dated 18.09.2024. This rejection became the immediate cause for the writ proceedings.

Initially, the writ petition challenged the Transport Department’s Circular/Letter No. 7640 dated 01.12.2021 and sought a direction to register the vehicle under BH-Series. Through I.A. No. 01 of 2024, the petitioner added a specific challenge to the rejection order dated 18.09.2024 and sought restoration and allowance of his BH registration application.

What the Court Examined and Decided

The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Abhishek Reddy, heard both sides and focused on one central question: whether the petitioner, a Judicial Officer of Bihar, was entitled to BH-Series registration for his newly purchased vehicle.

The petitioner argued that Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, as amended by the Central Motor Vehicles (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 2021 (referred in the judgment as the 28th Amendment), allows any eligible person to apply for BH-Series registration. For government employees, the only requirement is to furnish an official identity card.

According to him, once he submitted his official identity card, there was no legal ground left for the authorities to deny BH-Series registration. He contended that Bihar’s Transport Department could not, by issuing circulars or office letters, create new conditions not contemplated by the Central Rules. He therefore asked the Court to set aside the rejection order dated 18.09.2024 (Letter No. 8712) and direct the authorities to issue a BH-Series registration number.

On the other hand, the State opposed the writ petition, even questioning its maintainability. The State informed the Court that Bihar had implemented BH-Series via a notification dated 25.11.2021. Based on that notification, the State issued guidelines to all DTOs through Letter No. 7640 dated 01.12.2021.

Paragraph 2 of the letter dated 01.12.2021 instructed DTOs that applicants working in government offices must submit an official identity card and an Aadhaar card (self-attested copy), and that the DTO must be satisfied that such applicants are liable to be transferred outside Bihar to another State. Only then, the DTO should proceed with BH registration.

The State pointed out that the petitioner filed his BH-Series application on 12.06.2024 but failed to place on record any concrete material demonstrating that he was likely to be transferred outside Bihar. In paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit, the State claimed that the DTO, Patna considered all relevant facts and concluded that the petitioner was unlikely to be transferred outside Bihar. On that basis, the DTO issued Memo No. 8712 dated 18.09.2024 rejecting the application.

The Court carefully examined the legal framework. It referred to the amendment to Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. By this amendment, after clause (c) of Rule 47(1), new clauses (ca) and (cb) were inserted:

The amendment requires:

(a) Working certificate in Form 60 for private sector employees applying for BH-Series; and

(b) Official identity card for government employees applying for BH-Series.

Further, in Rule 48, a proviso was added stating that for BH-Series applications, the registration mark shall be generated randomly through the portal after verification of the working certificate in Form 60 or official identity card, as the case may be.

The Court noted that these Central Rules are framed by the Central Government under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and govern the entire scheme of BH-Series registration. They clearly spell out what documents must be submitted and how registration is to be generated and verified.

To support its view, the Patna High Court relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 4165 of 2024 dated 12.04.2024. In that case, the Bombay High Court had considered similar issues of denial of BH-Series registration based on a State circular.

The Bombay High Court held that:

• The Central Government Rules under the Motor Vehicles Act govern BH-Series registration.
• Once an applicant submits the official identity card as required by the Central Rules, the State cannot impose additional eligibility conditions through circulars.
• The Transport Commissioner had acted without jurisdiction in issuing a circular that effectively altered or restricted eligibility beyond the Central Rules.

The Bombay High Court also referred to its earlier decision in Shivpujan Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and the Supreme Court’s decision in Pancham Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh. Both decisions emphasized that the Motor Vehicles Act is a self-contained code and State authorities must act strictly within its provisions and the rules framed thereunder. They cannot use executive circulars in the name of “public interest” to bypass or modify statutory rules.

The Patna High Court further referred to a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 191 of 2023 and Writ Appeal No. 196 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023. In that case, the Karnataka High Court held that after the Central Government has issued a notification and amended rules providing for BH-Series registration and corresponding tax principles, a State Government cannot refuse to implement the notification or take a stand inconsistent with it.

Applying these principles, the Patna High Court examined the DTO’s main ground of rejection: that the petitioner was “unlikely to be transferred” outside Bihar.

The Court observed that it is common knowledge that judicial officers—whether Civil Judges (Junior or Senior Division) or District Judges—can be deputed or transferred to other States or to various national institutions. These include Ministries such as the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, the National Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Court of India, Central Administrative Tribunals, and many other tribunals spread across the country.

There is no legal bar preventing judicial officers of a State from being deputed or transferred to positions outside that State. Therefore, the DTO’s conclusion that the petitioner is “not likely to be transferred” outside Bihar had no legal or factual foundation and went against well-established norms of judicial service.

Combining this factual understanding with the legal position from the Bombay and Karnataka High Courts, the Patna High Court concluded that the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 (Letter No. 8712) was without legal basis and contrary to the Central Act and Rules.

The Court held that authorities in Bihar cannot create impediments or additional conditions for granting BH-Series registration that are contrary to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Once the Central Rules are complied with—here, by furnishing the official identity card—the State Transport officers must process the BH registration.

Finally, the Court allowed the writ petition. It set aside the order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Letter No. 8712 and directed the concerned authority to process the petitioner’s application and grant him the BH-Series registration number as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court’s order.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is significant for government employees in Bihar who wish to apply for BH-Series registration. It makes clear that State transport authorities cannot deny BH registration by adding extra conditions not present in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.

For applicants, especially those in transferable government or judicial service, the decision confirms that an official identity card is sufficient proof under the Central Rules. The DTO cannot insist on proof that a transfer outside the State will definitely happen, nor can it subjectively decide that such a transfer is “unlikely” and use that as a ground to reject BH-Series.

The judgment also sends a strong message that State circulars like Letter No. 7640 dated 01.12.2021 must operate within the four corners of the Central Act and Rules. Where there is a conflict, the Central Rules prevail, and any circular that effectively restricts rights granted under those Rules will not be sustained.

Practically, the ruling should help ensure smoother implementation of the BH-Series scheme in Bihar and protect citizens from arbitrary refusals by transport authorities.

Legal Issues and Answers

• Issue: Can the Bihar Transport authorities deny BH-Series registration to a government employee by insisting on proof that he is likely to be transferred outside Bihar, based on a State circular?
  Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that BH-Series registration is governed by Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Once the applicant submits an official identity card as required, the State cannot impose additional conditions through circulars. The DTO’s rejection based on a subjective assessment of transfer likelihood was held to be without legal basis.
• Issue: Was the petitioner, a Judicial Officer of Bihar, entitled to BH-Series registration for his new vehicle?
  Answer: Yes. The Court held that judicial officers can be deputed or transferred outside the State, and the petitioner fulfilled the Central Rule requirements. The rejection order dated 18.09.2024 (Letter No. 8712) was quashed, and the authority was directed to process and grant BH-Series registration within four weeks.

Cases Cited by the Court

• Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 4165 of 2024 (decision dated 12.04.2024) regarding denial of BH-Series registration and the invalidity of State-imposed extra eligibility conditions.
• Shivpujan Kumar S/o Gopikisan Singh & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Division Bench of Bombay High Court, referred for the principle that State cannot impose conditions without statutory backing under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules).
• Pancham Chand and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (Supreme Court), cited for the principle that the Motor Vehicles Act is a self-contained code and authorities must act within the statute and constitutional limits.
• Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 191 of 2023 and Writ Appeal No. 196 of 2023 (decision dated 27.07.2023) holding that the State Government cannot refuse to implement the BH-Series notification and rules issued by the Central Government.

Case Details

Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10573 of 2024

Case Title: Abhijit Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 887

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Abhishek Reddy

Advocates:

• For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankit Katriar
• For the Respondents (State of Bihar): Mr. Government Pleader 27

Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging rejection of BH-Series vehicle registration and related State circular-based conditions; prayer for certiorari and mandamus.

Date of Judgment: 16.07.2025

Link to Judgment: Click here to view the official Patna High Court judgment

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.