K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral)

This is a writ petition filed under Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction. Very briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows:

Respondent nos. 5 to 8 are manufacturers/suppliers of Electric Auto Rickshaw, which is being manufactured and sold without any manufacturing license and without imposition of VAT on it. It is alleged that no Rule has been framed for registration of the Electronic Auto Rickshaw. Neither there is any provision for insurance of the motor vehicle auto rickshaw, nor its passengers. No provision has been made for driving license or the identity of the Electronic Auto Rickshaw (E ricksaw). It is, accordingly, that the petitioner, making further allegation, which includes his representation made to respondent nos. 1 to 4 and inaction on their part, has sought the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent nos. 1 to 4 immediately stop the manufacturing, sale and plying the E Auto Rickshaw in the State of Uttarakhand.

(ii) Issue a writ, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent nos. 1 to 4 not to permit the plying of E Auto Rickshaw in Haridwar unless the manufacturers dealers, owners of E Rickshaw obtained the certificates from the competent authorities for manufacturing of E Rickshaw, selling of E Auto Rickshaw with the Sale Tax Department and without registration from the Transport Department and without valid license of the drivers from the Transport Department.

iii) Issue any relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the pubic at large.

vi) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the public at large.”

2. Notices were issued and the matter was settled for hearing. We have already passed an interim order dated 17th September 2014, which reads as follows:

“This is a Public Interest Litigation filed pointing out the illegal plying of battery operated rickshaws (commonly known as E-rickshaws).

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties including the learned Advocate General.

3. Shri Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.8 took a contention that since the matter is covered by Rule 2 (u) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is not to be treated as a motor vehicle and, therefore, there is no need to get it registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. The 8th respondent is carrying on business of sales of such vehicles in the State of Uttarakhand. Today, the learned Advocate General would point out that the provision which is relied on by the learned counsel for the 8th respondent has been substituted by the Notification published on 24th April 2014. Therein, in Rule 2 (u) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, in place of the previous proviso, the proviso, which is relied on by the 8th respondent has, however, been substituted. The proviso to Rule 2 (u) of the said Rules reads as follows:-

“Provided that a two wheeled battery operated vehicle shall not be deemed to be a motor vehicle if all the following conditions are verified and authorized by any testing agency specified in rule 126, namely:-

(a) vehicle is equipped with an electric motor having thirty minute power less than 0.25kW;

(b) maximum speed of the vehicle is less than 25 km/hr;

(c) vehicle is fitted with suitable brakes and retro reflective devices, i.e. one white reflector in the front and one red reflector at the rear;

(d) unladen weight (excluding battery weight) of the vehicle is not more than 60 kg;

(e) in case of pedal assisted vehicle equipped with an auxiliary electric motor, in addition to above, the thirty minute power of the motor is less than 0.25kW, whose output is progressively reduced and finally cut off as the vehicle reaches a speed of 25 km/hr, or sooner, if the cyclist stops pedalling”.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the 8th respondent has a case