IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, Prateek Jalan, JJ.
Rana Motors Pvt Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Govt. NCT Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9952 of 2019; Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 49727 of 2019
Decided On : 17-09-2020
speed governors - challenge to notification - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 118(2) - Section 2(41) - Rule 118(2) - Rule 118(1) - M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1997) 8 SCC 770 - impugned notification issued under Rule 118(2) - vehicles registered prior to 01.10.2015 - impugned proviso ultra vires - quashed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a dealer in motor vehicles, challenged a notification issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, requiring transport vehicles to be equipped with speed governors. The petitioner claimed that the vehicles have been verified and specified by an authorized testing agency to have a rated speed of not more than 80 kilometres per hour. The petitioner's challenge was limited to the proviso to the impugned notification, which deals with vehicles registered on or after 01.10.2015.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned proviso, insofar as it deals with vehicles registered on or after 01.10.2015, is ultra vires the powers of the respondent/Government of NCT of Delhi, and is hereby quashed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned proviso, which deals with vehicles registered on or after 01.10.2015, was within the powers of the respondent/Government of NCT of Delhi.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned proviso was neither referable to the powers vested in the respondent Government of NCT of Delhi under the Rules, nor to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta (supra). The proviso to Clause 1 of the impugned notification dated 17.07.2018, insofar as it deals with vehicles registered on or after 01.10.2015, is therefore ultra vires the powers of the respondent/Government of NCT of Delhi, and is hereby quashed.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed to the extent aforesaid, but without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Prateek Jalan, J. - The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the legality of a notification issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi [respondent no.1 herein] wherein provisions have been made for transport vehicles of various categories to be equipped with speed governors of the specifications set out therein. The said notification, bearing no. F.No.MLO(VIU)/TPT/2017/165/315 dated 17.07.2018 ("the impugned notification"), has purportedly been issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 118(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ("the Rules") and Section 2(41) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act").
Facts
2. The petitioner is a dealer in motor vehicles, particularly those manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Limited. These include the models Maruti Suzuki Omni Cargo, EECO Cargo, and Super Carry, which are classified as light goods vehicles. According to the petitioner, it has been unable to register the said vehicles in Delhi due to the restrictions laid down in the impugned notification.
3. As far as the present petition is concerned, the petitioner claims that the vehicles have been verified and specified by an authorized testing agency to have a rated speed of not more than 80 kilometres per hour ("kmph"). The present petition does not concern vehicles registered prior to 01.10.2015.
Provisions of the Act and Rules
4. Section 2(41) of the Act and Rule 118(2) of the Rules have been cited as the statutory basis for issuance of the impugned notification.
5. Section 2(41) of the Act provides for the definition of the term "State Government" in relation to a Union Territory. It reads as follows:
"State Government, in relation to a Union Territory means the administrator thereof appointed under article 239 of the Constitution".
6. Rule 118 of the Rules framed by the Central Government, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, deals with installation of speed governors. Rule 118, as substituted by an amendment dated 15.04.2015, reads as follows:-
"118. Speed governor.- (1) Every transport vehicle notified by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), save as provided herein, and manufactured on or after the 1st October, 2015 shall be equipped or fitted by the vehicle manufacturer, either in the manufacturing stage or at the dealership stage, with a speed governor (speed limiting device or speed limiting function) having maximum pre-set speed of 80 kilometre per hour conforming to the Standard AIS 018/2001, as amended from time to time:
Provided further that the transport vehicles that are-
(i) two wheelers;
(ii) three wheelers;
(iii) quadricycles;
(iv) four wheeled and used for carriage of passengers and their luggage, with seating capacity not exceeding eight passengers in addition to driver seat (M1 Category) and not exceeding 3500 kilogram gross vehicle weight;
(v) fire tenders;
(vi) ambulances;
(vii) police vehicles;
(viii) verified and certified by a testing agency specified in rule 126 to have maximum rated speed of not more than 80 kilometer per hour,
shall not be required to be equipped or fitted with speed governor (speed limiting device or speed limiting function):
Provided further that the transport vehicles manufactured on or after 1st October, 2015 that are dumpers, tankers, school buses, those carrying hazardous goods or any other category of vehicle, as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette from time to time, shall be equipped or fitted by the vehicle manufacturer, either in the manufacturing stage or at the dealership stage, with a speed governor (speed limiting device or speed limiting function) having maximum speed of 60 kilometer per hour conforming to the Standard AIS 018/2001, as amended from time to time.
(2) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify on or before 1st October, 2015, the categories of transport vehicles registered p
Commr. of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji
Dipak Babaria & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Mohd. Shahabuddin vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.
P.K. Palanisamy vs. N. Arumugham & Anr.
Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences & Anr.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.