Delhi High Court
Balbir Singh vs Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & ... on 30 November, 2010
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 30.11.2010
+ W.P.(C) No.7989/2010
BALBIR SINGH ...........Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.Venkatraman, Advocate
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..........Respondents
Through: Mr.Shariq Mohd. for Mr. Najmi
Waziri, Counsel for GNCT of
Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
C.M.20621/2010 (for exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.7984/2010
1. This writ petition has impugned the order dated 4.1.2008. On
4.1.2008 the Deputy Commissioner, Auto Rickshaw & Taxi Unit,
Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi had on an application
regarding replacement of petrol driven auto rickshaw to new CNG
operated auto rickshaws of the following registration numbers:
1. DL1R 9861
2. DAR 1983
3. DL1RB 2129
had passed the below noted order:
"All the three cases are of the three-wheelers which were
required to be converted to CNG fuel mode pursuant to the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by
31.3.2001. Later on the time limit was extended till
31.1.2002 against special permits issued by Transport
Department. The applicants in the present cases, as per
record available, have not effected the replacement in the
prescribed time limit and hence the request of the
applicants cannot be accepted in view of the orders of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Photocopies of orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India dated 26.3.2001 and 18.10.2001 are also enclosed."
2. Contention of the appellant is that he is the registered owner
of the auto rickshaw bearing no.DL-1RB-2129. On 28.7.1998, the
Supreme Court had restricted plying of all commercial vehicles
including taxis and auto rickshaws which are more than 15 years
old. On 26.3.2001, the following order was passed:
"While reiterating that commercial vehicles which do
not comply with the directions issued by this Court on 28th
July, 1998, shall not be permitted to ply in Delhi w.e.f. 1st
April, 2001, we have today made certain relaxations and
exemptions to mitigate the sufferings of commuter public
in general and school going children in particular, by
granting limited extension of the dead-line till 30th
September, 2001, in certain specified cases.
With a view to ensure that the relaxations and
exemptions given by us today are not abused or misused,
we direct that each one of the commercial vehicles (buses
or autos) which are covered by the relaxations, shall be
permitted to ply after 1st April, 2001 till 30th September,
2001 only if they carry and display on the windscreen of
the concerned vehicle a permit/ or authorization duly
signed by Shri Ashok Pradhan, Principal Secretary,
Transport, Delhi Administration, Delhi. Shri Pradhan shall
issue the permit/authorization after satisfying himself that
the person applying for the permit/authorization falls
within the parameters of relaxation given by us and is
entitled to the permit/authorization, having placed a firm
order for conversion to CNG/other clean fuel mode to ply
the vehicle in Delhi till 30th September, 2001. Copies of
the affidavits to be filed by the parties, on or before
31.3.2001 in this court, in terms of various clauses of
relaxation, shall be furnished to Shri Pradhan by Shri
Rawal, the learned A.S.G. for facility of reference."
3. On 18.10.2001, the Supreme Court recorded as follows:
"Time fixed by order dated 26th March, 2001 (as extended
by order dated 28th September, 2001) is extended till 31st
January, 2002 in terms of the signed order. This order, is
in continuation of order dated 28th September, 2001."
4. The petitioner had applied for his P-3 form, on 29.12.2001
(page 98 of the paper-book). Admittedly, after this application,
Form P-4 had not been filled up by him. Submission before this
court is that the petitioner being unwell, he could not in time apply
for the scrapping of his old auto rickshaw in order that it could be
replaced by a new auto rickshaw. Admittedly, after 29.12.2001, no
written communication or action has been taken by the petitioner
with the Transport Department.
5. Attention has been drawn to the information obtained by the
petitioner on his RTI application. It is pointed out that the
Transport Department as per this information had allowed
replacing of new vehicles after the scrapping of the old auto
rickshaws.
6. The policy of the government had clearly been detailed; if a
party wished to replace its old auto with a new CNG vehicle, it was
permitted to do so after completion of formalities which included
the scrapping of the old auto rickshaw. No such action was
carried out by the petitioner for which there is no reasonable
explanation. There was a prescribed time limit within which the
petitioner had to act. Almost more than a decade had passed since
that time. The time limit had been extended by the Supreme
Court; last up to 31.1.2002. Action not having been taken by the
petitioner within the prescribed time and his waking up from his
slumber almost nine years thereafter is of no help. This writ
petition is clearly an abuse of the process of law; it is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
NOVEMBER 30, 2010/rb
