SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 509

Supreme Court of India
A.K. PATNAIK & SWATANTER KUMAR
Avishek Goenka
Versus
Union of India & Another
IA NOS. 4, 5, IA NOS. 6-8, IA. NOS. 9-11, 12, 13, 14 AND 15 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.265 OF 2011
Decided on : 03-08-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
It is not the extent of VLT percentage of films which is objectionable. The very use of black films or any other material on the safety glasses is impermissible.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 32 r/w Order XVIII, Rule 5, Supreme Court Rules, 1966 – Writ petition already disposed of – IA not maintainable – Application for modification of order in fact a review petition – Registered accordingly by the Registrar – No infirmity in law. (Para 3)

       (2000) 7 SCC 269 – Relied upon

       (b) Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Rule 100 – Rule interpreted by Supreme Court to mean “that it is the safety glasses alone with requisite VLT that can be fixed in a vehicle” – Became law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India – Court cannot change language of the Rule – It is a legislative function (Para 11)

       (c) Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Rule 100 – Interpretation of statute – An interpretation can be challenged on ground of law and not grounds of inconvenience – No need to alter the interpretation given to Rule 100. (Para 12)

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 32 – PIL – Decision took about a year – Case widely publicized by media – Judgment in rem – Neither feasible nor required by that all dealers/sellers of window films be noticed – Present petitioners could and should have intervened, if they so desired – Moreover the judgment was consistent with earlier judgment – Contention that the decision should be modified because they were not heard, rejected. (Para 13, 14)

       (e) Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 – Rule 100 – Expression ‘maintained’ – Means what is required to be manufactured in accordance with law should be continued to be maintained as such – It is not the extent of VLT percentage of films which is objectionable – Very use of black films or any other material on the safety glasses is impermissible. (Para 15, 16)

       AIR 2004 SC 361 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Two IAs were filed in already disposed of writ petition for impleadment and modification.

       Registrar dismissed the application for impleadment as not maintainable.

       Application for modification was held by Registrar as in fact an application for review and he therefore registered it as such.

       Finding of the Court:

       IAs are not maintainable.

       Result: IAs dismissed. Orders issued.

Judgment :-

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The applications for impleadment and intervention are allowed subject to just exceptions. All applications for placing documents on record are also allowed.

2. I.A. No. 5 of 2012 has been filed by the Dealers and Distributors of tinted films in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2011 under Order XVIII, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 against the dismissal of two interim applications, i.e., seeking permission to file application for impleadment and application for modification by the Registrar of this Court vide his Order dated 16th May, 2012.

3. The learned Registrar vide the impugned order noticed that application for impleadment was not maintainable inasmuch as the writ petition in which the application was filed has already been disposed of. In regard to the application for modification, according to the applicants, the petitioner suppressed various aspects of the matter and misled the court in passing the order and the same order was therefore, liable to be modified. Dealing with this contention, the learned Registrar, while referring to the judgment of this Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 269] held that the application, in fact, was an application for review and not for modification. Thus, he declined to receive the application and registered the same in accordance with the Rules of the Supreme Court.

4. We hardly find any error of law in the Order of the Registrar under appeal, but we consider it entirely unnecessary to deliberate upon this issue in any further detail, since, we have permitted the applicants to address the Court on merits of the application. Keeping in view the fact that a number of other applications have been filed for clarification and modification of the judgment of this Court dated 27th April, 2012, without commenting upon the merit or otherwise of the present appeal, we would deal only with the application for modification or clarification filed by these applicants along with others.

5. I.A. No. 15 has been filed by the International Window Film Association. I.A. No. 4 has been filed on behalf of Vipul Gambhir.

6. An unnumbered I.A. of 2012 is filed by 3M India Ltd. Another unnumbered I.A. has been filed on behalf of the dealers and distributors of the tinted films.

7. I.A. No. 3 of 2012, an application on behalf of the petitioner to appear in person, is allowed.

8. I.A. No. 7 of 2012 has been filed on behalf of M/s. Garware Polyester Ltd. I.A. No. 10 of 2012 is an application filed by M/s. Car Owners and Consumer Association.

9. Another unnumbered I.A. has been filed on behalf of M/s. Gras Impex Pvt. Ltd. All these applications have been filed by various applicants seeking clarification and/or modification of the judgment of this Court dated 27th April, 2012 on various grounds.

10. The petitioner has filed I.A. No. 11 of 2012 by way of a common reply to the grounds taken in all these applications and has also placed certain documents on record. The various applicants above-named have sought modification/clarification of the judgment of this Court dated 27th April, 2012 principally and with emphasis on the following grounds :

1) That the applicants were not parties to the writ petition and were not aware of the proceedings before this Court. Thus, their submissions could not be considered by the Court, hence the judgment of the Court requires modification.

2) The applicants have placed material and reports on record that the use of films or even black films is permissible scientifically and in law.

3) It is contended that Rule 100(2) uses the expression ‘maintained’ which implies that safety glasses, including the wind screen, can be maintained with requisite VLT percentage even by use of black films.

4) Lastly, it is contended that para 27 of the judgment needs modification by substituting the words ‘use of black films of any VLT percentage’ by the words ‘use of black films of impermissible VLT percentage”.






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top