Delhi High Court
Gautam Kumar Laha vs National Highway Authority Of India & ... on 6 November, 2024
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela, Manmohan
$~36 & 8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15392/2024 & CM APPL. 64539/2024
GAUTAM KUMAR LAHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Praveen Agrawal and Mr.
Rohit Dhamija, Advocates
alongwith Petitioner in person.
versus
NHAI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Standing
Counsel, Ms. Sangeeta
Vazirani, Advocates for
NHAI/R-1.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Mr.
Apoorv Kurup, CGSC, Mr.
Arnav Mittal, Mr. Gurjas S.
Narula, Mr. Shaurya Agarwal,
Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Advocates for
UOI/R-2.
8
+ W.P.(C) 15120/2024
SIDHANT MALAIYA .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Jasmeet
Singh, Mr. Saif Ali, Mr.
Pushpendra S. Bhadoriya, Mr.
Vijay Sharma, Mr. Pranav
Menon, Mr. Saurav, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ankur Mittal, CGSC and
Mr. Aakash Kr. Singh, GP,
Advocates.
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Standing
Counsel, Ms. Sangeeta
Vazirani, Mr. Adithya Ramani,
Advocates for NHAI/R-2.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15392/2024 & Connected matter Page 1 of 7
By:MADHU SARDANA
Signing Date:12.11.2024
12:38:11
% Date of Decision: 06th November, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL)
1. Of the two petitions filed, one is a Public Interest Litigation and
the other is a writ petition filed by Motorcycle enthusiasts through Mr.
Sidhant Malaiya preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The PIL seeks a writ of mandamus to quash the Gazette
Notification dated 14th June, 2018, bearing GSR number 571(E) and
Gazette notification dated 15th January, 2021, bearing File No.
NHAI/PIU-GZB/DME-I,II & III/12021/2020 issued by respondent
No. 1-National Highway Authority of India (for short 'NHAI') and
also seeks direction to quash the penalty of Rs.20,000/- imposed on
two (2) wheelers apart from other reliefs. The writ petition being
W.P.(C) No. 15120/2024 also seeks quashing of the aforesaid
notifications as also a direction to respondents to permit two (2)
wheelers to ply on all the Highways and Expressways. It also seeks
direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to frame guidelines for usage of
two (2) wheelers on the National Highways and Expressways.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners at length, the
following issues/challenges appear to be presented to us for
consideration with regard to the jurisdictional authority of the NHAI: -
(i) to restrict the type of vehicles which would ply on
the Expressways purportedly under the provision
of section 35 of the Control of National Highways
(Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (for short 'Act,
2002').
(ii) to levy/impose a penalty under section 115 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'MVA, 1988')
read with section 35 of the Act, 2002 to the extent
of Rs. 20,000/- for purported violation by two (2)
wheelers/ three (3) wheelers, without consulting
the State Government as envisaged in section 115
of MVA, 1988.
(iii) to levy a penalty to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-,
particularly when under section 177 of MVA,
1988, the maximum penalty is Rs. 500/-.
3. So far as, the issue (i) is concerned, the same has been
succinctly and elaborately considered by the learned Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Yuvraj Francis v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.
(C) 13713/2024, decided on 17th October, 2023. To the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no rationale or nexus
in restricting the types of vehicles plying on expressway, the said
judgment in Yuvraj Francis (supra) provides sufficient reasons. In
order to appreciate the submissions of the petitioner in the context of
ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it would be
apposite to extract the relevant paragraphs, which are as under:
4. Having reviewed the documents and contentions placed before
us, we unequivocally acknowledge the gravity and public
significance of the issues presented in this PIL. In fact, the existing
regulatory framework is well-equipped to address the concerns
underscored in this PIL, a sentiment echoed by the Petitioner's
counsel. Nonetheless, adherence to traffic norms and road
regulations is not merely a matter of law, but a paramount
necessity to safeguard every individual using our expressways and
to facilitate unhindered vehicular flow. Given the accelerated pace
at which vehicles traverse these expressways, any oversight or
disregard for the prescribed regulations could culminate in tragic
consequences, manifesting in casualties, physical harm, and
extensive property damage. The inherent vulnerability of slow-
moving vehicles, notably two-wheelers, three-wheelers, tractors,
and the like, when juxtaposed against high-speed vehicles, further
amplifies this risk. The disparity in the speed rating for different
By:MADHU SARDANA
Signing Date:12.11.2024
12:38:11
categories of vehicles complicates the ability of drivers to
accurately gauge distances, presenting an additional hazard.
5. The communication issued by NHAI on 02nd September 2022 to
Respondents No. 3 and No. 4 paints a revealing picture. It
acknowledges the alarming frequency of accidents attributed to the
ingress of slow-moving vehicles onto the expressway. The
correspondence highlights that 19 entry and 22 exit points are
being utilized by these vehicles to access the main carriageway,
despite the vigilance of traffic marshals stationed there. The letter
also sheds light on the overriding challenge: despite preventive
measures, the absence of rigorous enforcement enables these
prohibited vehicles to brazenly venture onto the expressway. In
light of these revelations, it is evident that NHAI has actively
engaged with the relevant authorities, urging them to reinforce and
implement the standing prohibitions.
6. It has not been disputed before us by anyone of the Respondents
that subject to provisions of the regulations and agreements
governing expressways, the entry of slow-moving vehicles,
including but not limited to two-wheelers, three-wheelers, tractors,
and animal-driven vehicles, is categorically prohibited on specific
expressways developed as high-speed corridors. This prohibition is
instituted primarily to ensure the safety of all road users and to
maintain the operational efficiency and speed consistency on these
expressways. The Delhi-Meerut Expressway and the Eastern
Peripheral Express, for instance, have been designated as high-
speed corridors where the movement of slow-moving vehicles is not
permitted, as per NHAI's RTI response dated 22nd May 2023,
relevant extract whereof is as under:
Sl. Information Required Desired Information
No.
2. Whether Entry of slow Delhi Meerut Expressway and Eastern
moving vehicles such as Peripheral Expressway have been
Two/Three wheelers, developed as a high speed corridor and
tractors, animal drawn the movement of high speed vehicles may
vehicles are permitted to pose risk to the safety of certain vehicles
enter and travel on i.e. two wheelers, three wheelers and other
Expressways? slow moving vehicles like tractors etc. are
not allowed as per the Gazette
Notifications dated 15.01.2021 and dated
14.06.2018. Under Section 35 of "The
Control of National Highways (Land and
Traffic) Act, 2002" the slow moving
vehicles are prohibited from using the
DME & EPE.
7. NHAI's above response also provides substantial clarity on the
regulations concerning the movement of slow-moving vehicles on
particular expressways. The Delhi-Meerut Expressway and Eastern
Peripheral Expressway have been constructed as high-speed
corridors. It is explained that due to the inherent risks associated
with the blend of high-speed vehicles and slow-moving ones,
certain vehicles, including but not limited to two-wheelers, three-
wheelers, tractors, and animal-drawn vehicles, are not allowed on
these expressways. We note that these prohibitions are re-enforced
by Gazette Notifications dated 15th January, 2021 and 14th June,
2018. As per Section 35 of the Control of National Highways (Land
and Traffic) Act, 2002, the use of any highway or part thereof can
be restricted for certain classes of vehicles by way notification in
the Official Gazette. Although the Delhi-Gurugram section of the
NH-8 is not mentioned in the above response, we note that it has
been previously characterized as an "Expressway" in the
communication dated 12th October 2022, extracted below:
8. It is therefore evident that the regulatory framework has clear
provisions prohibiting slow-moving vehicles on designated
expressways. The issue, as we have discerned from the information
and discussions preceding, is more of enforcement and adherence
rather than the absence of regulations. While regulations
concerning the movement of slow-moving vehicles on expressways,
such as the Delhi-Meerut Expressway, are in place, it is evident
that there is a gap in their practical execution. NHAI's own
acknowledgment underlines this enforcement lacuna.
Consequently, effective enforcement mechanisms must be put in
place by the authorities to ensure that the prescribed rules are
followed, thus averting potential hazards and ensuring the safety of
all road users.
9. Considering the above, the following directions are being
issued: -
9.1. Respondent No. 3 is directed to ensure rigorous enforcement of
existing prohibitions discussed above pertaining to the movement
of slow-moving vehicles on expressways, especially within the
territorial confines of the NCT of Delhi. Regular monitoring and
prompt corrective actions should be taken where deviations from
the prescribed norms are observed.
9.2. As regards, prayer clause (b) seeking the demarcation of
specific lanes for slow-moving vehicles on expressways, we are of
the opinion that such a proposition is laden with complexities. The
process of setting aside dedicated lanes for such vehicles on
expressways is not merely a matter of administrative decision-
making but is deeply entrenched in policy considerations.
Evaluating the implications of such an initiative necessitates an in-
depth examination of multiple facets including feasibility, road
safety implications, potential alternatives, and broader traffic
management considerations. Given the multifaceted nature of this
issue, it is a decision best left to the discretion of the government
and the relevant departments. They possess the required expertise,
infrastructure, and ground knowledge to make informed decisions
after thorough assessments. As a judicial body, we must refrain
from delving into areas earmarked for executive and policy-making
functions. The relevant government departments should exercise
their discretion, underpinned by expert assessments, to determine
the feasibility and safety implications of such initiatives.
10. The Court acknowledges the earnest efforts of the Petitioner in
bringing to light an issue of immense public significance. Road
safety is an area that demands unwavering attention, and collective
efforts from both, the authorities and the public, are imperative for
preserving and enhancing it. We hope that the directives laid down
in this judgment will pave the way for safer expressways and roads,
where every user, irrespective of their mode of transportation, can
travel securely and efficiently. The onus now lies on the
implementing agencies to translate these directions into concrete
actions on the ground.
11. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of."
4. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid, it is apparent that the
NHAI under the directions of this Court in Yuvraj Francis (Supra)
has taken appropriate action while issuing the notifications under
challenge. Since the judgment is rendered by a co-equal bench of this
Court, the ratio would ordinarily bind this Court too, in accordance
with the principles of judicial propriety and discipline. However, with
respect to the issue raised in the present petitions, this Court agrees
and concurs with the said analysis and opinion. Resultantly, so far as
issue (i) is concerned, the present petitions in the nature of a Public
Interest Litigation stands closed.
5. However, with respect to the issue (ii) and (iii) respecting
imposition of penalty to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- is concerned, it is
deemed appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner in the Public
Interest Litigation bearing W.P.(C) No. 15392/2024 to submit a
representation qua imposition of such penalty with the respondent
no.1/NHAI. Should the petitioner make the representation, the
Competent Authority of the respondent no.1/NHAI would consider
the same and decide it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within
four (4) weeks.
6. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and settled principles of law,
the present PIL alongwith W.P. (C) No. 15120/2024 are closed.
MANMOHAN, CJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
NOVEMBER 06, 2024/rl
