Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Foundation of Azadpur Tempo & Truck Welfare - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Police - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13894 of 2018
Decided On : 21-12-2021
Regulatory actions must follow statutory provisions, and arbitrary exclusions from permit eligibility contravene established legal standards.
Headnote:(A) The Delhi Control of Vehicular and Other Traffic on Road and Streets Regulations, 1980 - Regulation 30 - The Supreme Court decision dated 20.11.2019 in W.P.
(C) 13029/1985 - The petitioners sought permission for BS-III compliant diesel commercial vehicles to apply for operational permits in Delhi. The respondents failed to include options in their online portal despite no regulatory prohibition against such vehicles, which is inconsistent with legal mandates. (Paras 4, 8, 23)
(B) Legal Requirement - It is established law that actions provided by a statute must be fulfilled in the specified manner. The dismissal of requests based solely on engine type does not adhere to the stipulated legal framework. (Paras 9, 20)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the exclusion of BS-III compliant diesel vehicles from the online permit application system in Delhi, citing non-compliance by respondents with existing regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled to direct the respondents to incorporate the option for BS-III compliant vehicles to allow application for permits.
Issues: The primary issues were whether respondents could restrict permit applications without regulatory basis and how engine specifications should not dictate operational permissions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the lack of a regulatory notification invalidated respondents' actions and reiterated that the exclusion of BS-III vehicles was inconsistent with legal provisions intended to manage vehicular access on Delhi's roads.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for impleadment as petitioners (Para 1) |
| 2. petition concerns bs-iii vehicle permits (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. regulation 30 details on vehicle restrictions (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. no notification issued by authorities (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. engine type distinction does not justify restrictions (Para 10 , 11 , 19) |
| 6. respondents' actions not legally sustainable (Para 22 , 23) |
| 7. order for permit inclusion and conditions (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. final order and directive given (Para 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
CM. APPL. 46586/2021
1.1. This is an application on behalf of the applicants seeking impleadment as petitioners
1.2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for respondents, who submits that without prejudice to their rights and contentions, they have no objection to the application being allowed.
1.3. In view of the above, the application is allowed. The applicants are impleaded as co-petitioners. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
W.P.(C) 13894/2018
2.1. Petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to permits the owners of BS-III compliant diesel commercial vehicles to apply for grant or renewal of "all time no entry permission" for operation of their vehicles in Delhi for supply of essential commodities such as fruits and vegetables.
2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the online portal of the respondents, for making the applications, does not permit the owners of BS-III compliant diesel commercial vehicles to apply for grant or renewal of the said permit.
3. Learned counsel submits that the vehicles are otherwise compliant to the decision of the Supreme Court as well as the National Green Tribunal, which prohibits plying of diesel vehicles beyond the age of 10 years in Delhi, NCR.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that prohibition has been imposed in terms of Regulation 30 of The Delhi Control of Vehicular and Other Traffic on Road and Streets Regulations, 1980. He further submits that the direction has been further imposed in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 20.11.2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) 13029/1985 titled M.C. Mehta and Ors. Versus Union of India.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Economic Transport and Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., AIR 1994 Delhi 140.
6. Regulation 30 relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents reads as under:-
"30. Restriction on Heavy and Medium Transport Vehicles
(1) The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Delhi, may by due notification prohibit the plying of medium or heavy transport vehicles in any road or street either totally or during specified hours under a permit granted by him.
(2) He may also by due notification prohibit or regulate loads and projections on vehicles which may cause danger, obstruction or annoyance to other road users."
7. Perusal of the said regulation shows that the Deputy Commissioner of Police has to issue a notification, whereby plying of medium or heavy transport vehicles in any road or street is prohibited either totally or during specified hours under a permit granted by him.
8. Admittedly, no notification has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police under the said provision. Respondents have merely omitted to provide an option in the dropdown menu of the online portal.
9. Since there is no notification, respondents cannot contend that power has been exercised under Regulation 30. It is settled principle of law that "if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner" [Opto Circuit India Limited Versus Axis Bank & Others, (2021) 6 SCC 707]
10. Furthermore, it may be noticed that Regulation 30 prohibit plying of medium or heavy transport vehicles and does not make a distinction between the type of medium and type of heavy transport vehicle as is sought t
