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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. PATEL, MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.
Micropark Logistics Private Limited & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2378,4270,4271,4267,4269 of 2022 with Writ Petition No. 5409 of 2021 with Writ Petition No. 7695 of 2021, Writ Petition No. 7682 of 2021,Writ Petition No. 7689 of 2021, Writ Petition No. 7674 of 2021,Writ Petition (St) No. 24215 of 2021,Writ Petition No. 1774 of 2022,Writ Petition No. 1054 of 2022 and Writ Petition No. 2095 of 2022
Decided On : 13-04-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr Pradeep Thorat, with Aditi S Naikare & Aniesh Jadhav, Ms Pooja Thorat, with Anukul Seth, for the Appellant; Mr Pp Kakade, Gp, with Ss Panchpor, AGP, for the Respondent.

The main legal principle established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Supreme Court orders regarding the prohibition of sale or registration of BS-IV compliant vehicles after 1st April 2020. The judgment emphasizes the conditions for legitimate registration and sale of BS-IV vehicles and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on vehicle registrations.

Headnote:

BS-IV Vehicles - Interpretation of Supreme Court Orders - Central Motor Vehicle Rules - [Rule 115 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989] - [Orders of 27th March 2020, 13th August 2020, 24th November 2020, 30th November 2020] - The judgment discusses the interpretation of the Supreme Court orders related to the prohibition of sale or registration of BS-IV compliant vehicles after 1st April 2020. It highlights the conditions for legitimate registration and sale of BS-IV vehicles, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on vehicle registrations, and the restrictions on second-hand sales of such vehicles.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the registration and sale of BS-IV compliant vehicles in light of the Supreme Court orders prohibiting their sale or registration after 1st April 2020. The court addresses the controversy surrounding the registration of vehicles and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on vehicle registrations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that legitimate sales and registrations of BS-IV compliant vehicles prior to 31st March 2020 were permissible, and the prohibition was aimed at preventing a rush of inter se sales and registrations in a ten-day window opened due to the pandemic. The court quashed all blacklisting orders against the vehicles and restored the cancelled registrations.

Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the Supreme Court orders regarding the registration and sale of BS-IV compliant vehicles, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on vehicle registrations, and the restrictions on second-hand sales of such vehicles.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that legitimate sales and registrations of BS-IV compliant vehicles prior to 31st March 2020 were permissible, and the prohibition was aimed at preventing a rush of inter se sales and registrations in a ten-day window opened due to the pandemic. The court clarified the conditions for legitimate registration and sale of BS-IV vehicles and emphasized the importance of meeting all three requirements mentioned in the judgment.

Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute, quashed all blacklisting orders against the vehicles, and restored the cancelled registrations. It clarified that vehicles failing to meet the specified conditions cannot be registered, sold, or plied. The court also directed the processing of fitness certificate renewal applications in due course.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Patel, J. - This group of matters Relates to the second sale and several Bharat Stage-IV ('BS-IV') compliant vehicles. Shortly stated, the Respondents have in most cases blacklisted these vehicles. In two cases, Writ Petition Nos. 4270 and 4271, registrations have actually being cancelled.

2. Mr Thorat for the Petitioner has taken us to a compilation of orders passed by the Supreme Court in the MC Mehta vs Union of India & Ors orders relating to vehicular pollution. This compilation starts with orders of 27th March 2020, very shortly after the Covid 19 pandemic and lockdown was announced, because there was a peculiar situation that arose in those circumstances.

3. The origin of the regulations and restrictions placed by the Supreme Court may be traced to the order of 24th October 2018 of the Supreme Court in MC Mehta vs Union of India & Ors., (2019) 17 SCC 490. In paragraph 25, interpreting the Central Motor Vehicle rules, the Supreme Court said: 25. Therefore, in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we read down sub-rule (21) of Rule 115 and direct that sub-rule (21) of Rule 115 shall be interpreted and understood to read that no motor vehicle conforming to the emission standard Bharat Stage-IV shall be sold or registered in the entire country with effect from 1-4-2020.''

4. It may be advantageous at this point to straightaway turn to a summary of the legal position captured in the order of 28th June 2021 by a Division Bench of this Court (Gupte and Karnik, JJ) in Writ Petition No. 2209 of 2021. This is part of the compilation tendered by Mr Thorat from pages 79 to 82. Our Division Bench said:

''3. The controversy in this Petition concerns registration of about 15 four wheeler vehicles and 5 two wheeler vehicles which are registered by the Petitioner, who is a dealer in BMW, Mini Cooper, Porsche Cars and Ducati Bikes, in its own name prior to 31/03/2020. The State's objection to the registration of these vehicles arises from an order passed by the Supreme Court on 24/10/2018 directing the Union and the States not to permit sale or registration of motor vehicles conforming to the emission standard BS -IV in the entire country with effect from 01/04/2020.This order has since been clari?ed by the Supreme Court by orders dated 27/03/2020 and 13/08/2020. The need for those clari?cations arose as a result of the present Covid-19 pandemic, which held up registrations of vehicles which were sold prior to, but could not be registered as a result of the pandemic, and also for those vehicles whose sales were not re?ected in E-Vaahan portals of the RTOs in addition to the lost opportunity to the dealers to sell vehicles during the 10 - day period of actual lockdown. In the Petitioner's case, the Petitioner had purchased these vehicles and registered them in its own name prior to 31/03/2020. The registration is, therefore, not in breach of the Supreme Court order of 24/10/2018. As for registration in the name of a dealer, there is no bar in law for the same. A dealer is within his rights to purchase and register any vehicle in his own name. There is no prescribed number of vehicles which the dealer can so purchase and register. The observations of the Supreme Court in its clari?catory orders of 27/03/2020 and 13/08/2020 are a result of sales, which were neither conducted nor registered or placed on the portal before 30/03/2020. The Court was mindful of the fact that the dealers were conducting inter se sales and registering vehicles in their own name under the extension granted by the Supreme Court in its order dated 27/03/2020 as a result of the peculiar situation arising out of the pandemic. The dealers attempted to get over the bar in the order of 24/10/2018 by conducting inter se sales and register vehicles in the ten-day window opened by the Court for registration of sales of Bharat Stage IV compliant vehicles as a result of the pandemic. It was these sales and registrations whic

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top