Chandra Prakash Pandey vs Food Corporation Of India & Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 7037 Del

$~14
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) 514/2017

%                             Date of decision : 6th December, 2017

       CHANDRA PRAKASH PANDEY              ..... Petitioner
                    Through : Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with
                              Mr. K.B. Upadhyay and Mr.
                              Mohit Bhandari, Advs.
                    versus
       FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Manoj, Standing Counsel
                              for FCI with Ms. Aparna Sinha,
                              Adv.
                              Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC for
                              GNCTD with Mr. Rhishabh
                              Jetley, Adv.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
               JUDGMENT (ORAL)

GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

1. This writ petition filed in public interest litigation seeks the following prayers :-

"(a) Issue an appropriate writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the Respondents to stop plying of trucks/trolleys/goods carrier which are being run in Delhi in violation of Rules 90(7) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989;

(b) Issue an appropriate writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the Respondents to stop plying of over loaded trucks/trolleys/goods carrier in Delhi;

(c) Direct Respondent No.1 / Food Corporation of India to provide the food grains to trucks as per their laiden weight as

permitted by the Respondent No.2 / Transport Department; and

(d) Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Respondent no.1 - Food Corporation of India has filed the counter affidavit. Our attention is drawn to Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding limits of weight and limitation on use so far as heavy goods vehicles or heavy passenger motor vehicles are concerned. Respondent no.1 has stated that there is no overloading of vehicles in the godowns of respondent no.1 and there is no variation of the statutory provisions or of Rule 90(7) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988.

3. It is stated by Mr. Manoj, ld. Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 that additional affidavit stands filed in the Registry today. Though the same is not on record, however a photocopy has been handed over in court. The same has been perused. In this affidavit, respondent no.1 has clearly stated that no violation of any of the norms/rules would be countenanced. Respondent no.1 has adverted to several recommendations by the Committee constituted by the order dated 2nd November, 2017 of the respondent no.1 to carry out detailed investigation of instances of overloading of trucks, if any, engaged in by the staff of Food Corporation of India for the distribution.

4. It has also been stated by respondent no.1 that steps are being taken to eliminate violations of law as well as orders passed by the Supreme Court of India and the National Green Tribunal in this regard. Advisory stands issued by the respondent no.1 to the

respondent no.3 to advise its field functionaries posted at respondent no.1's depots to strictly ensure compliance of the provisions of law failing which the trucks shall be denied the permission to lift the foodgrains from the depot of the respondent no.1.

5. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ld. ASC for the Government of NCT of Delhi has handed over a copy of the status report dated 30 th November, 2017 under the signatures of Mr. D.R. Arora, Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement). The status report is taken on record. It is pointed out therein that the Enforcement Wing of Transport Department is taking steps against the trucks which are found violating under Rule 90(7) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.

6. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Food Corporation of India - respondent no.1 as well as respondent nos.2 and 3 to ensure strict compliance with the requirements of Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 90(7) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.

7. Respondent no.2 shall continue to strictly monitor the compliance with statutory provisions and the rules thereunder by the trucks/trolleys/goods carrier loads in Delhi and to take action against those who are found violating the law.

8. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

C.HARI SHANKAR, J DECEMBER 06, 2017/mk