Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., A.K. SIKRI, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
M.C. Mehta – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
I.A. Nos.366, 367, 368, 370, 371, 372 in I.A.No.365 in I.A.No.345, I.A.No.369, 373, 374 in I.A. No.366 in I.A. No.365 in I.A. No.345 in Writ Petition(Civil) No.13029/1985 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.817 of 2015 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.116 of 2013 & Writ Petition (Civil) No.728 of 2015
Decided on : 16-12-2015
Facts of the Case:
By order dated 9th October, 2015 certain directions issued, aimed at mitigating the hardship which the people living in Delhi undergo having regard to the high of pollution in the city that has earned to it the dubious reputation of being the most polluted city in the world. Certain measures directed to be taken.
The Government of NCT of Delhi shall direct issue advertisements to inform commercial traffic of the bypass routes and the imposition of the ECC imposed by this Court for entry of the vehicles into Delhi.
Direction for levy and collection of ECC issued.
True spirit of the order passed by the Court was that vehicles that were bound for Delhi alone were to enter Delhi and other vehicles bound for other destinations/cities were supposed to bypass Delhi by using alternative routes.
Order dated 9th October, 2015 was in the same spirit intended to act as a restraint against vehicles not bound for Delhi entering Delhi. The said direction appears to have been understood to mean as though vehicles not bound for Delhi could also enter Delhi provided they pay ECC. The true intention, however, was that the vehicles that are not bound for Delhi are diverted to alternative routes to bypass Delhi. The levy of ECC has no doubt resulted in some diversion of such vehicles but a very large number of vehicles not bound for Delhi still appear to be entering Delhi on payment of ECC.
Finding of the Court:
Order dated 9th October, 2015 intended to act as a restraint against vehicles not bound for Delhi entering Delhi. The said direction appears to have been understood to mean as though vehicles not bound for Delhi could also enter Delhi provided they pay ECC. The true intention, however, was that the vehicles that are not bound for Delhi are diverted to alternative routes to bypass Delhi. The levy of ECC has no doubt resulted in some diversion of such vehicles but a very large number of vehicles not bound for Delhi still appear to be entering Delhi on payment of ECC.
Result : Authorities directed to take steps in right earnest before 5th January, 2016. Case directed to be posted on 5th January, 2016
Order
We had by our order dated 9th October, 2015 issued certain directions, aimed at mitigating the hardship which the people living in Delhi undergo having regard to the high of pollution in the city that has earned to it the dubious reputation of being the most polluted city in the world. We had among others directed the following measures to be taken:-
(1) The Governments of the States of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan shall take steps to ensure that commercial traffic for destinations other than Delhi use alternative routes and to ensure that in the course of implementation of the said direction no traffic jams and other inconvenience is caused to the public.
(2) The Government of NCT of Delhi shall direct issue advertisements to inform commercial traffic of the bypass routes and the imposition of the ECC imposed by this Court for entry of the vehicles into Delhi.
(3) The toll collectors shall put in place Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) systems at their own costs at nine main entry points in the city by November 30, 2015 and by 31st January, 2016 at all the remaining 118 entry points to the city. The NCT Government shall install its own CCTV cameras at nine entry points and also organise surprise visits to oversee the collection of ECC and other necessary arrangements.
We had by the same order directed levy and collection of ECC at the following rates:
(i) The Category 2 (light duty vehicles etc.) and Category 3 (2 axle trucks) at the rate of Rs.700/- per vehicle;
(ii) Category 4 (3 axle trucks) and Category 5 (4 axle trucks and above) at the rate of Rs.1300/- per truck.
Passenger vehicles, ambulances and vehicles carrying essential commodities like food stuffs and oil tankers for Delhi were exempted from the above charges. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing as amicus, argued that imposition of ECC and the directions issued by this Court regarding diversion of commercial vehicles/trucks to alternative routes has made some difference but the pollution levels continue to remain high despite such measures. He submitted by reference to the material placed on record that the level of pollution detected on or before 9th October, 2015 was infact lower than the levels recorded on subsequent dates. Mr. Salve further submitted that although diversion of vehicles to alternative routes in terms of the order passed by this Court was given effect to belatedly on 6th November, 2015, yet the said direction has not been effectively enforced inasmuch as vehicles not bound for Delhi are being allowed to enter Delhi on payment of the prescribed ECC. It was submitted that the true spirit of the order passed by this Court was that vehicles that were bound for Delhi alone were to enter Delhi and other vehicles bound for other destinations/cities were supposed to bypass Delhi by using alternative routes. He drew our attention to a similar direction issued by this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others – (2003) 10 SCC 561. It was in that view urged that the order passed by this Court on 9th October, 2015 could be modified/clarified to make it clear that the State Governments shall take steps to divert vehicles that are not bound for Delhi through alternative routes especially those using National Highway-8 and National Highway-1 for entering the national capital. It was also contended by Mr. Salve that in order to effectively discourage vehicles from entering Delhi, the ECC could be revised upwards especially when the Government of NCT of Delhi, the M.C.D. and the Union of India were all agreeable to the same.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, submitted that diversion of traffic away from Delhi by use of alternative routes as also by way of enhancement of the ECC has been thoroughly discussed with the learned Amicus Curiae and that the Union of India and so also the Government of NCT have no objection to such a direction being issued. He submitted that as a matter of fac
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
