Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/144/2023 on 17 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:8304
Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPMS 1076/2024
WPMS 2965/2022
WPMS 3186/2022
WPMS 144/2023
WPMS 903/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Aakib Ahmed, Mr. Abhishek
Verma, Mr. Vishwa Prakash Bahuguna and
Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Counsels for the
petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing
Counsel, with Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal,
Deputy AG, for the State.
Mr. Saurabh Adhikari, Central Govt.
Standing Counsel, for the Union of India.
Mr. Mayank Rajan Joshi, Advocate,
for the concessioner.
Mr. Vipul Sharma and Mr. Nivesh
Bahuguna, Counsel for the respondent no. 5.
Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani,
Advocate, for the intervener.
(2) Since common questions of fact
and law are involved in these writ petitions,
these are being heard and decided together
by this common judgment.
(3) Petitioners are transport operators.
They are aggrieved by establishment of
automated testing stations at different
places in State of Uttarakhand. According to
petitioners, the concessioner to whom
contract for setting up automated testing
stations is given does not fulfil the norms;
the automated testing stations are being
established at far off places and it is not
possible for e-rickshaw pullers and e-
rickshaw owners and other transport
operators to get their vehicles tested in such
2025:UHC:8304
stations, which are situated at far off places.
(4) Per contra, Mr. Mayank Rajan Joshi,
learned Counsel appearing for the
concessioner, who has been given the
contract, submits that Rule 175 of Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 was amended
w.e.f. 1.11.2022 and as per the amended
rule, fitness of commercial vehicles has to be
tested only in automated testing stations.
This, according to him, has been done to
ensure that polluting vehicles are kept away
from road and only road worthy transport
vehicles ply on different routes.
(5) Learned State Counsel also
supports the submission made by Mr. Joshi
and submits that as per the amended rule,
State Government is under duty to set up
automated testing stations and in discharge
of that statutory duty, arrangement for
setting up such stations are being
undertaken.
(6) Learned Counsels for the
petitioners submit that they would be
satisfied if writ petitions are disposed of by
permitting the petitioners to make fresh
representation to the Commissioner,
Transport, who may be directed to look into
the matter and take decision as per law.
(7) Accordingly, in view of the oral
submission made by learned Counsel for the
parties, writ petitions are disposed of
granting liberty to petitioners to make fresh
representation to Commissioner, Transport.
If they make fresh representation within one
week from today, Commissioner, Transport
shall look into the matter and pass
appropriate order, as per law, within three
weeks thereafter. For a period of four weeks
or till decision is taken by Commissioner,
Transport, whichever is earlier, status quo
2025:UHC:8304
shall be maintained. It goes without saying
that all stakeholders including the
concessioner, to whom contract has been
awarded, shall be heard before passing the
order.
(8) It is made clear that this Court has
not considered the merits of the rival
contentions made by the parties.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
17.9.2025
Pr
PRABODH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab1
KUMAR
98d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6
FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.09.18 18:47:25 +05'30'
2025:UHC:8304
