Back
2001(3) Supreme 338
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., B.N. Kirpal & V.N. Khare, JJ.
M.C. Mehta -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
I.A. No. 107 of 2001
With
I.A. No. .... of 2001
And
I.A. No. ..... of 2001
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985
Decided on 4-4-2001
Held : We have recorded this statement and permit Mr. Raval not to appear for Delhi Administration. We appreciate the stand taken by the Union of India regarding the attitude of Delhi Administration. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, learned counsel appears for the Delhi Administration and submits that he has instructions from Delhi Administration, on whose behalf this application (I.A. No. 107/2001) seeking extension of time was filed, to withdraw the application. He submitted that steps are being taken by Delhi Administration to issue permits/authorisations after proper verification. (Paras 6 and 7)
Held also : The citizens should not be made to suffer for somebodyelses follies. We, therefore, in partial modification of our order dated 26th March, 2001, direct that pending verification of the correctness of affidavits/undertakings, the Transport Department of Delhi Government may issue Provisional Certificates/authorisations, valid till 14.4.2001, to all those transporters who had filed the requisite affidavits/undertakings in this Court and have applied in the prescribed form to the Transport Department for grant of regular permits/authorisations. These Provisional Certificates/authorisations may be issued by such of the officials of the Transport Department as are authorised by Mr. Pradhan in that behalf to tide over the present situation. (Para 10)
Held further : (after referring to Article 144 of Constitution) However, before we consider the matter any further, we direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Delhi to place on affidavit, the stand of the Delhi Government insofar as implementation of the orders of this Court are concerned as also about the statements, if any, made by the Chief Minister, and Minister for Transport, Government of Delhi, outside the Legislative Assembly, as have appeared in the print and electronic media. The affidavit shall be filed within one week. The application filed by Mr. Salve as mentioned above, is consequently allowed. Application (I.A. No. 107/2001), filed by Delhi Administration is dismissed as withdrawn. (Para 11)
Held in addition : The learned Amicus Curiae has filed this application seeking certain directions in furtherance of the orders of this Court. Those directions essentially concern the recommendations made by Bhure Lal Committee which were accepted by this Court, requiring conversion of the entire city bus fleet to CNG mode. After hearing Mr. Salve, we direct :
(i) The Principal Secretary (Transport) of the Delhi Government shall compile all particulars relating to the organisations which have undertaken the job of supplying CNG vehicles or converting the existing vehicles to CNG mode, on the basis of which affidavits/undertakings have been filed by the transporters and obtain from those organisations confirmation as to the time frame in which the conversion/supply shall be effected by them.
(ii) We request the Bhure Lal Committee to examine the existing standards for CNG vehicles including conversion of vehicles to CNG mode and for the CNG refilling station and submit report to this Court for our consideration within four weeks.
On 26th March, 2001 we had issued directions to the D.T.C. for making available buses for schools as a condition precedent for plying their 1880 buses till 30.9.2001. Mr. M.L. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for D.T.C. submits that as per directions issued by this Court, 860 buses (besides 126 standby buses) have been made available for school duties and that D.T.C. shall comply with the directions issued by this Court on 26.3.2001 in letter and spirit. We record the statement of Mr. Verma and would like to impress upon D.T.C. the necessity to ensure that entire contingent of 860 buses is actually made available for school duties. This step, in our opinion, would mitigate to some extent, hardships being faced by school children. (Paras 12 and 13)
Held finally : List for further directions on 12th April, 2001 at 2.00 p.m. (Para 14)
ORDER
On 28th July, 1998 this Court had directed, inter alia, that the entire fleet of city buses which are operating in Delhi be converted to single fuel CNG mode by 31st March, 2001. Despite this direction, given nearly 3 years ago, Government of Delhi s response has been extremely tardy, to say the least. No serious attention was paid to the order of the Court by the Administration and it appears that even the private operators got encouraged by this tardy response of the State Administration and they also did not take appropriate steps to comply with the order of the Court dated 28th July, 1998. It was after taking note of the submissions made at the bar, to mitigate to whatever extent possible, the hardship which the commuter public would have been put to, particularly the school going children, that on 26th March, 20011 certain relaxations were given by this Court. It was directed, inter alia, that all those vehicle owners who have taken effective steps or shall take so by 31st March, 2001, for the purpose of either acquiring new buses which would operate on CNG fuel mode or to convert their existing buses to operate on CNG fuel mode could be granted permits/authorisations, after filing proper affidavits/undertakings in this Court, to ply their existing vehicles not more than eight years old, equal in number, till 30th September, 2001. This dispensation was also extended to other commercial vehicles which were required to switch over to CNG fuel mode. After our order dated 26th March, 2001, there was a great rush to file affidavits/undertakings in this Court. The Registry of this Court received more than 27,000 affidavits/undertakings within about three days and with a view to cope with the rush, the officials of the Registry worked on those days till about midnight.
2. On 26th March, 2001, the Principal Secretary (Transport) Shri Ashok Pradhan had been authorised to issue permits/authorisations to all eligible transporters, in accordance with the stipulations contained in the order, to be operative till 30th September, 2001. On an application made by Delhi Administration on 30.3.2001, to permit assistance of four other officers to Mr. Pradhan, to issue the permits/authorisations, on the evening of 30th March, 2001 at an emergent sitting of the Court, necessary orders were made by us granting the prayer of the Administration to facilitate it to discharge its obligations.
3. Yesterday (3.4.2001) an application was filed (I.A. No. 107/2001) on behalf of Delhi Administration. At that time Mr. Kirit N. Raval, learned Addl. Solicitor General, who appeared both for the Delhi Administration and the Union of India, submitted that Delhi Administration was taking all steps to verify the affidavits/undertakings to issue necessary permits/authorisations, after proper satisfaction, but that it was a time consuming process. It is stated in the application that in the case of some autorickshaws, certain irregularities have also been noticed which require more caution and attention being paid before issuance of permits/authorisations to those vehicles to ply till 30th September, 2001. A prayer was accordingly made in the application to permit the plying of all such buses and other commercial vehicles, which are not more than 8 years old, where their owners had filed affidavit/undertakings indicating that they had placed firm orders for conversion to CNG or other clean fuel mode and had also filed applications in the prescribed form before the Transport Department for a period of 7 days, during which authorisations/permits could be prepared and issued.
4. At the request of Mr. Raval, we had directed that application (I.A. No. 107/2001) to be listed for consideration today.
5. On the matter coming up today, Mr. Kirit N. Raval, learned Addl. Solicitor General, concerned by the defiant attitude of Delhi Administration as disclosed in the media, has made the following statement in Court today.
"As a Law Officer of the country, I will no longer
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
