SLP CC 18614-15/15

1
ITEM NO.1

COURT NO.4
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SECTION XIV
I N D I A

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)...CC Nos.18614-18615/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/06/2015
in PIL No. 38/2015,26/06/2015 in PIL No. 42/2015 passed by the
High Court of Gauhati)
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Petitioner(s)
VERSUS

RITA DAS MOZUMDAR & ORS. & ETC. ETC

Respondent(s)

(With c/delay in filing SLP)
WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC 3086/2015
(With office report)
S.L.P.(C) No.5641/2015
(With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and
interim relief and office report)
S.L.P.(C) No.5639/2015
(With office report)
S.L.P.(C) No.5642/2015
(With office report)
S.L.P.(C) Nos.7369-7370/2015
(With office report)
T.P.(C) Nos.341-349/2015
(With appln.(s) for permission to intervene by the applicant
above-named and appln.(s) for stay and appln.(s) for permission to
appear and argue in person and appln.(s) for intervention and
appln.(s) for intervention and office report)
S.L.P.(C) No.5638/2015
(With office report)
S.L.P.(C) Nos.5176-5177/2015
(With interim relief and office report)
T.C.(C) No.70/2015
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
T.C.(C) No.68/2015
(With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and
interim relief and office report)
T.C.(C) No.69/2015
(With appln.(s) for intervention and appln.(s) for bringing on
record the additional facts and interim relief and office report)

Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2015.12.10
17:12:56 IST
Reason:

 SLP CC 18614-15/15

2
T.C.(C) No.72/2015
(With appln.(s) for intervention and appln.(s) for intervention
and appln.(s) for bringing on record the additional facts and
interim relief and office report)
T.C.(C) No.71/2015
(With appln.(s) for intervention and appln.(s) for bringing on
record the additional facts and interim relief and office report)
T.C.(C) No.73/2015
(With appln.(s) for intervention and appln.(s) for bringing on
record the additional facts and interim relief and office report)
T.C.(C) No.105/2015
(With interim relief and office report)
S.L.P.(C) No.1864/2015
(With appln.(s) for recalling the court's order and appln.(s) for
permission to file additional documents and appln.(s) for
directions and appln.(s) for permission to file additional
documents and office report)
Date: 09/12/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s)

Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.

Mukul
Pinky
Vibha
D. S.

Rohatgi, A.G.
Anand, ASG
Dutta Makhija, Sr. Adv.
Mahra, AOR

Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Navneet Dugar, Adv.
Mr.
Dr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.

P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv.
A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Shriraj Dhruv, Adv.
E. C. Agrawala, AOR

Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Dr.

Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv.
S.J. Amith, Adv.
Sourav Arora, Adv.
(Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR

Mr. S. Mohapatra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Sharma, AOR

 SLP CC 18614-15/15

3
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
For Respondent(s)

Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv.
Tripurari Ray, Adv.
Rohit Singh, Adv.
Vishnu Sharma, AOR
K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.
Tripurari Ray, Adv.
Rohit Singh, Adv.
Vishnu Sharma, AOR
C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv.
Tripurari Ray, Adv.
Rohit Singh, Adv.
Vishnu Sharma, AOR

Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arunima Dwivedi, AOR
Mr. Rohit Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv.
Mr. Rauf Rahim, AOR
Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anil Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Prakash Pandey, AOR
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.

K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv.
Rohit Singh, Adv.
Zoheb Hossain, Adv.
Rauf Rahim, AOR

Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.

Dushyant A. Dave, Sr. Adv.
Tripurari Ray, Adv.
Rohit Singh, Adv.
C.S. Ashri, Adv.

Mr. B. Balaji, AOR
Mr. Muth Kirshan, Adv.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.
Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Mr.

Gopal

Subramanium,

learned

senior

counsel

appearing for the petitioners has submitted that introduction
of

quadricycle

as

a

vehicle

does

not

come

within

the

 SLP CC 18614-15/15

4
dictionary clause as enshrined under Section 2(25), 2(26) and
2(27) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the 1988
Act').

It is further urged by him that, however, it would

come within Section 2(28) of the 1988 Act.

Learned senior

counsel has drawn our attention to Chapter VII of the 1988
Act,

especially

Sections

109

to

111

which

deal

with

construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles.
Emphasis is on the safety on the road as such a submission
has

been

advanced

in

the

backdrop

of

Article

21

of

the

Constitution and the statutory provisions.
Learned senior counsel has drawn our attention to
the

Central

Motor

Vehicles

Rules,

Rules), especially to Rule 2(l).

1989

(for

short,

'the

The said Rule reads as

follows:“2(l) 'Category M1' means a motor vehicle used
for carriage of passengers, comprising not more
than eight seats in addition to the driver's
seat.
Note.- Definitions of type of body work for
motor vehicles of Category M1 shall be in
accordance with Annexure 1 of AIS 053:2005, as
amended
from
time
to
time,
till
the
corresponding BIS specifications are notified
under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986
(63 of 1986);]
Thereafter,
2(rf).

he

has

referred

us

to

Rule

2(m)

to

It is emphatically put forth by him that though the

Note appended to Rule 2(l) refers to M1 category, yet all the
categories of vehicles that come on road or likely to come on

 SLP CC 18614-15/15

5
road have to meet the standard prescribed by the Bureau of
Indian Standards.

It is further urged by him that Rule 2(z)

introduces “quadricycle” as a four wheeled vehicle having
certain features seems to appear to be complete in itself,
but it cannot remain alien to the command of Note to Rule
2(l), for that insists on getting clearance for the purpose
of safety.
In course of hearing Mr. Gopal Subramanium and Mr.
C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel, has referred us to the
Check List of Draft Amendment No.3 of 2014.

It reads as

follows:
“1.

Page No.8/14, after clause 3.11.

Insert new clause 3.12 as follows:
3.12

Category L7-Quadricycle- Means a
vehicle defined in clause (2) of
G.S.R.99(E)

3.12.1

Category L7-M: means a quadricycle
of category L7 used for carrying
passengers, having seats not more
than 4 (including driver) and kerb
weight not exceeding 450 kg.

3.12.2

Category L7-N: means a quadricycle
of category L7 used for carrying
goods, having seats not more than 2
(including driver) and kerb weight
not exceeding 550 kg.
Explanation: Kerb weight of the
vehicle referred in 3.12, 3.12.1
and 3.12.2 shall be as per IS
9211:2003 but does not include the
following:
a)

weight of batteries in the case

 SLP CC 18614-15/15

6
of electric/hybrid vehicles or,
b) weight
including
storage in
multi-fuel
Referring

to

the

of gaseous fuel system
tanks for gaseous fuel
the case of mono, bi or
vehicles.”

same,

it

is

canvassed

that

by

virtue of introduction of the new clause, an endeavour has
been made by the Central Government to reduce the rigor of
standard only to cover quadricycle, which is impermissible.
Learned

senior

counsel

would

contend

that

the

Central

Government has the authority to amend the standards from
time to time, but regard being had to the number of vehicles
on the road and the prevalent conditions, by no stretch of
imagination, the rigor cannot be reduced.

On

the

contrary,

contend learned senior counsel that the strictness may be
enhanced, for there cannot be a situation where it can be
lessened.

The primary concern, as it appears to us, is the

safety of the people who travel on the road and the nature
and character of the vehicle i.e. quadricycle, when it will
come on the road and its affect.

Needless to say, the Court

is not an expert in this matter, but indubitably there has
to be a clearance from the competent authority, i.e. Bureau
of Indian Standards or Automobile Industries Standard (AIS).
Ms.

Pinky

Anand,

learned

Additional

solicitor

General appearing for the Union of India would submit that
the vehicle, quadricycle, is being covered under Rule 2(z)

 SLP CC 18614-15/15

7
of the Rules and there is specific safety standards for the
quadricycle.
Regard

being

had

to

the

aforesaid

rivalised

submissions, we would like to peruse the file in entirety
which deals with the safety standards in this regard.

Let

the file be produced by the Central Government on the next
date of hearing.
Let the matter be listed on 20th January, 2016.
Learned counsel for the parties shall file their
respective convenience volumes by 10th January, 2016.

(Chetan Kumar)
Court Master

(H.S. Parasher)
Court Master