HC strikes down 2018 GNCTD notification for equipping speed governors in vehicles [Read Judgment]

The Delhi HC in, RANA MOTORS PVT. LTD v. GOVT. NCT OF DELHI & ORS. called the 2018 notification of GNCTD ultra vires to their power. The court even rejected their contention which said that the said notification was in compliance with MC Mehta v. Union of India.

Facts

The petitioner in this case challenged the NCT government notification wherein provisions have been made for transport vehicles of various categories to be equipped with speed governors of the specifications set out. The petitioner is a dealer in a motor vehicle and is unable to register the vehicles due to the impugned notice. 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 kmph.

Petitioner’s argument

The Petitioner challenged the first clause of the notification which dealt with vehicles registered after 1.10.2015 and called it ultra vires to the powers of GNCTD. Rule 118(2) of the  Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 allows govt to regulate vehicles registered before 1.10.2015. It was also contended that lightweight vehicles would not be covered under the first clause but under the eighth clause and the maximum speed of 80 kmph required by Rule 118(1) could not have been reduced to 40 kmph.

Respondent’s argument

The respondents relied on M.C Mehta v. Union of India where the SC  directed the respondent authorities to ensure that the concerned categories of vehicles, including light goods vehicles, were fitted with speed governors with a pre-set speed limit of 40 kmph.

Rejoinder

It was submitted by petitioners that even though provisions of MC Mehta are applicable but the respondent's notification was issued under Rule 118(2). Furthermore, the intention of SC in that judgment was not to set a specific speed limit but for the directions given in the judgment to hold the field until the executive filled the lacuna.

Analysis

The court highlighted via previous judgment that “ an executive order cannot be justified on grounds which are not borne out by the record, but sought to be urged during the course of litigation, by way of affidavit or otherwise”. Further, the notification is ultra vires to the scope of govt since according to the rule it was supposed to be laid down before 1.10.2015. Also,  in respect of vehicles registered prior to 01.10.2015, Rule 118(2) carves out an exception in respect of vehicles covered by the proviso to Rule 118(1). The Court also said that the MC Mehta judgment does not confer upon the state government to issue the impugned notice.

Case Details

Case- W.P.(C) 9952/2019 & CM APPL. 49727/2019

Counsel for petitioner- Mr. Siddharth Nath, Advocate

Counsel for respondent- Mr. Sanjoy Ghose & Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC with Mr.Rishabh Jetley & Mr.Naman Jain, Advocates for GNCTD. Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate for R-3.

Coram-  HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

Read Judgment Latestlaws.com