Harish Kumar And Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 65 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal today.

Heard learned senior counsel in support of the writ petition. Petitioners, ten in numbers, are owners of auto-rickshaws and had been earning their livelihood by plying the auto-rickshaws within the NCT of Delhi.

2. Petitioners' case is that pursuant to the directions given by the Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition No. 13029/1995 titled M.C.Mehta v. Union of India and other Orders passed by the Supreme Court in that regard, petitioners applied to the Transport Department-respondent No. 2 for the grant of Form No. P-3. Petitioners claim that No Objection Certificate in Form P-3 had been obtained after making payment of all pending challans and tax dues. No Objection Certificate in terms of the Scheme entitled the petitioners to the issuance of Form No. P-4. The procedure prescribed was that the vehicle was to be taken for purposes of scrapping to the designated scrapping unit. Upon the vehicle being scrapped, Form No. P-4 was issued. The issuance of Form No. P-4 would entitle the holder to obtain a permit for a new vehicle on clean fuel, i.e., CNG. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been unjustifiably denied the issuance of Form No. P-4 despite all their efforts to get the vehicles scrapped after issuance of Form No. P-3. Resultantly, petitioners are unable to earn their livelihood as old vehicles i.e. pre 1990 vehicles cannot be operated.

3. Petitioners have also produced on record a notice claimed to have been sent on 31st October, 2002, as per Annexure-2, wherein the petitioners recorded their grievances and called upon the respondents to issue Form No. P-4 certificates.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Respondents have stated that they have acted in accordance with the Supreme Court directions which enjoined upon respondent No. 2 to abide by the following:-

(I) No commercial vehicles including taxies which are 15 years old will be allowed to ply beyond 2nd October, 1998.

(II) Replacement of all pre 1990 autos and taxies with the new vehicles on clean fuels is to take place by 31.3.2000.

(III) Financial incentives for replacement of post 1990 autos and taxies with new vehicles on clean fuels are to be given by 31.3.2001.

Supreme Court noted that the answering respondent, that is, NCT, had taken necessary steps so that all pre and post 1990 auto-rickshaws are totally phased out by 31st March, 2001. This date was subsequently extended to 31st March, 2002, on filing of the individual undertakings by owners in the form of an affidavit before the Registry of the Supreme Court of India to replace two-stroke auto-rickshaws with new CNG auto-rickshaws or petrol/diesel fuel; mode TSR after retrifitment/conversion of the TSRs to CNG fuel by way of modification in engines.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the present cases are those where the petitioners singularly failed to have their vehicles scrapped as required or converted to clean fuel, i.e., CNG. Accordingly, the petitioners who kept on plying these old vehicles cannot do so now when the dead-line is over and seek a direction for issuance of P-4 Certificate to enable them to have a permit for a new clean fuel vehicle.

6. I find merit in this submission. Petitioners have not produced on record in this writ petition any document or record showing that they had moved the Department or made efforts for getting their vehicles scrapped. Nothing has been produced on record to show that any request went unheeded or the Department was unable to give them time in the scrapping unit for scrapping of the vehicles. It may also be noted that most of the auto-rickshaw owners had filed individual undertakings by way of affidavits before the Registry of the Supreme Court to replace their two-stroke auto-rickshaws with CNG auto-rickshaws after retrefitment for the post 90 auto-rickshaws. It may also be noted that the following writ petitions : WP(C) No. 7591/2002 titled Jai Prakash & Ors. v. GNCT; WP(C) No. 6418/2002 titled as Amar Singh v. GNCT and WP(C) No. 48/2003 titled as Santosh & Ors., filed in this Court, were disposed of directing the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court of India for any extension or relief. Similarly, in this case also if petitioners are desirous of obtaining any relaxation in the Orders passed by the Supreme Court pursuant to which the respondents have acted, their remedy would be to approach the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.