VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2016 › High Court of Delhi

Lalit Mohan Sharma v. Union of India and Ors

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
29 January 2016
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
W.P.(C) 5691/2012

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JANUARY 29, 2016 "pp/gsr"..

Case details

Parties and counsel

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 29th January, 2016 + W.P.(C) No.3626/2011 LALIT MOHAN SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pardeep Dahiya, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advs. for UOI. AND + W.P.(C) No. 5691/2012 & CM No.28295/2015 (for deletion of respondents no.2,3,4,5&6) LALIT MOHAN SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pardeep Dahiya, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC for R-1. Ms. Rachna Gupta, Adv. for R-2. Ms. Sumedha Dang, Adv. for R-6. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. W.P.(C) No.3626/2011 has been filed seeking mandamus to the respondent no.2 Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) to a) establish and publish Indian Standard for the safety device "Auto-dipper" claimed by the petitioner to be an essential safety device under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and, b) to notify the foreign standard J-565: Semi Automatic Headlamp Beam Switching Devices in which the petitioner was holding a patent (and which is stated to have expired in January, 2016) as Indian Standard under Rule 8 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 till the time respondent no.2 BIS further evolves and formulates its own standard. 2. W.P.(C) No.5691/2012 is filed impleading, besides Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India, also, National Road Safety Council, Vehicle Research and Development Establishment, Automotive Research Association of India, Central Farm Machinery Testing and Training Institute and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)- Indian Institute of Petroleum and seeking directions for mandatory implementation of Rule 106 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with 110(1)(j) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and for mandatory fitment of "Auto-Dipper" in every motor vehicle (existing or new). 3. Needless to state that the petitions were entertained, pleadings got completed and additional affidavit filed. 4. The counsels have been heard. 5. Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Central Government to make rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles and trailers with respect to all or any of the maters specified therein. Clause (j) thereunder is as under:- "(j) safety belts, handle bars of motor cycles, auto-dippers and other equipments essential for safety of drivers, passengers and other road users." 6. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the legislature has thus treated "Auto-Dipper" as essential to the safety of drivers, passengers and other road users. He argues that in exercise of the power under Section 110(j), the Central Government in the year 1993 amended Rule 125 of the Motor Vehicle Rules to in Sub-Rules (3) and (4) thereof provide that a) within three years therefrom, every goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle shall be equipped with an "Auto-Dipper"; and b) within four years therefrom every motor vehicle other than motor cycles and three-wheeler of engine capacity not exceeding 500 cc shall be equipped with an "Auto- Dipper". 7. Attention is next invited to the amendment dated 15th January, 1998 to the Motor Vehicle Rules providing in Rule 125(4) thereof that every motor vehicle other than a motorcycle and three-wheeler of engine capacity not exceeding 500 cc shall be equipped with an "Auto-Dipper". 8. It is contended that the petitioner first approached the BIS in the year 2010 for establishing the standard for a "Auto-Dipper" but BIS asked the petitioner to pay cost of Rs.2 crores and upon failure of the petitioner to pay the same, the BIS did not establish the standard of an auto-dipper and resulting in, notwithstanding the amendments of the years 1993 and 1998 to the Motor Vehicle Rules, the provision for mandatory installation of auto- dipper in the motor vehicles not being implemented, to the prejudice of the petitioner who as aforesaid was holding th

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.