-'f BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. SUNIL BANSAL & ORS.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted. c

2Copy pinpoint2. The appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited has filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi passed in writ petition No.5532 of 2007 dated 29th October,

2007. D ~

3Copy pinpoint3. It is imperative to evaluate the historical perspective in order to properly appreciate main issue involved in this ca~e. The notification no.GSR 686 (E) dated 20th October, 2004 is in issue by which sub-rule (14) was inserted in Rule 115 of the E Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. This sub-rule prescribed the mass emission standards (Bharat Stage-Ill which is .. popularly called Euro-Ill)) for four wheeled vehicles. This notification was based on the judgment of this court in M. C. " Mehta v. Union of India & Others (1998) 6 SCC 63. The F relevant portion of the notification dated 20th October, 2004 reads as under:-

"(1) These rules may be called the Central Motor Vehicles. (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2004. G (2) They shall come into force- .,(..

(a) in the National Capital Region and the cities of Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad including Secunderabad, Ahmedabad, Pune, Surat, H

716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Kanpur and Agra in respect of four wheeled vehicles manufactured on and from 1st April, 2005 except in respect of four wheeled transport vehicles plying on Inter-State Permits or National Permits or All India Tourist Permits within the jurisdiction of B these cities; and

(b) In other areas of the country, from such date as may be notified by the Central Government.

Explanation.- In this sub-rule "National Capital Region" c shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (f} of section 2 of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 (2 of 1985)."

4Copy pinpoint4. According to the appellant, the notification dated 0 20.10.2004 makes it abundantly clear that the four-wheeled transport vehicles manufactured on and from 1.4.2005, except ~· in respect of four wheeled vehicles plying on Inter-State Permits or on the National Permits or All India Tourist Permits within the jurisdiction of the National Capital Region and certain other E selected cities, would be permitted to ply only if they have · Bharat Stage- Ill certificate. In other words, it became mandatory . ~ for all the vehicles manufactured after 31.3.2005 to obtain Bharat Stage-Ill certificate. •

5Copy pinpoint5. In M.C. Mehta (supra), th'is court realizing the urgency. F and importance of protection ·and improvement of the .. environment directed the authorities to take urgent steps to tackle the acute problem of vehicular pollution in Delhi. The court was distressed at the apathy of the State Administration when according to the white Paper published by the_ G Government of India, the vehicular pollution contributed 70% of · the air pollution as compared to 20% in 1970. In the said white paper, a deadline of 1.4.1998 had been proposed for implementation of major actions. No concrete steps were taken. It may be pertinent to mention that the authority headed H

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. SUNIL717 BANSAL & ORS. (DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] ---t by Shri Shure Lal proposed certain measures for immediate A improvement of air quality and had given a time-frame but those important recommendations of the Committee were not implemented. The Shure Lal Committee also proposed the following measures within the time-frame in its action-take report filed in this court: B Time Frame

-4, A Augmentation of public transport (stage carriage) to 10,000 buses. 1-4-2001 c B Elimination of leaded petrol from the NCT Delhi as proposed by the Authority and 1-9-1998 agreed to by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas. D

c Supply of only premix petrol in all petrol-filling stations to two- '"31-12-1998 stroke engine vehicles. E D Replacement of all pre-1990 .; autos and taxis with new 31-3-2000 vehicles on clean fuels. 'f E Financial incentives for replacement of all post-1990 31-3-2001 F autos and taxis with new vehicles on clean fuels.

F No 8-year-old buses to ply except on CNG or other 1-4-2000 G '• A clean fuels.

H

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 719 SUNIL BANSAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

---t to by all the authorities who shall also take effective and adequate steps to tackle the problem of vehicular pollution.

7Copy pinpoint7. Pursuant to the directions of this court, the Central Government issued various notifications in this regard. On 1.6.1999, the Central Government issued a notification introducing Euro-I/Bharat Stage-I (BS-I) emission norms, pursuant to which vehicles manufactured after 1.6.1999 had to comply with BS-I norms. The Central Government on 31.1.2000 __., issued another notification introducing Euro-II/BS-II emission norms, pursuant to which vehicles manufactured after 1.3.2000 C had to comply with BS-II norms.

8Copy pinpoint8. The clear interpretation of the notification dated 20.10.2004 was that the vehicles manufactured after 1.4.2005 and complying with BS-Ill nonns and the vehicles manufactured ~ prior to 1.4.2005 complying with BS-I and BS-II norms but not more than 15 years old could ply within the National Capital Region. In the said notification, an exception has been provide in respect of four wheeled transport vehicles holding Inter-State Permits or National Permits or All India Tourist Permits but not complying with BS-Ill norms even though manufactured on or after 1.4.2005, which exception would apply only if such vehicles were plying on the Inter-State Routes beyond the National Capital Region. In other words, such vehicles could not ply ~ within the National Capital Region and other cities mentioned in the notification. F

9Copy pinpoint9. The appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, in view of the legal position, on 30.3.2007, issued notice inviting tenders for transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Cylinders within the National Capital Region from its bottling plant at Piyala in Bahadurgarh to its Badarpur Depot and G • i. therefrom to the godowns of its LPG distributors within Delhi. Clauses 9.3 (a) and 9.3(b) of the special terms of contract of the Notice inviting tenders prescribed that the trucks offered for Delhi should comply with BS-Ill emission norms if manufactured on or after 1.4.2005 and the age of the truck should not be more H ._,

720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A than 12 years from the month of floating of the Notice inviting tenders as would appear from the "Registration Certificate -r- Book" of the truck.

10Copy pinpoint10. It may be pertinent to mention that respondent no.1 filed B a writ petition No.2882 of 2007 in the High Court of Delhi challenging the eligibility criteria of the trucks to be offered by the bidders. The Delhi High Court on 10.5.2007 dismissed the said writ petition holding inter alia that respondent no.1 had not been able to make out a case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. It could not be said that the tender ~ondi!ions- C as framed by the appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporatiqn Limited are violative of the norms and notifications issued under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules or the directions of the Supreme Court. The decision to permit vehicles which are less than 15 years old, even if they do not conform to BS-I I norms subject to the condition that no fresh registration of vehicles not conforming to Bharat Stage-II norms would be granted after '/t-- 24.10.2001 and the vehicles registered after 1.4.2005 would conform to BS-Ill norms is intended to phase out old vehicles in a progressive manner while addressing the concern of adhering to the emission norms to control vehicular pollution.

11Copy pinpoint11. Respondent no.1 on 27. 7 .2007 filed another writ petition no.5532 of 2007 praying inter alia for directions to the appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to call and i F include the companies/firms owned by respondent no.1 and his brothers to participate in the price bids; for directions to the.Tl appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited not to exclude. · the companies/firms owned by respondent no.1 and his brothers from the price bids on the wrong assumption and interpretation G of clause 9.3(b) of the standard terms & conditions of the notice inviting tenders.

12Copy pinpoint12. The Central Government on 20.1.2009 issued a .ll ""' notification making the Central Motor Vehicles (First Amendment) Rules, 2009 for amendment of the Central Motor H

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 721 . SUNIL BANSAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] Vehicle Rules, 1989. In the Amendment Rules of 2009, a A ·~; proviso was added to sub-rule (7) of Rule 90 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The said proviso provides that where 'such' vehicle is regi~tered in the National Capital Region, it shall not pick-up or set down goods between two points situated in the National Capital Region unless it conforms B to the mass emission standards (BS-Ill) specified in sub-rule (14) of Rule 115.

13Copy pinpoint13. According to the interpretation of the notification dated -4. 20.10.2004, the Delhi High Court found that "it is clear that a vehicle compliant with Bharat Stage-Ill norms possessing a c National or Inter-State Permit may ply in the National Capital Region or Delhi, more so when vehicles older and less efficient and manufactured prior to that date are permitted to ply on the Delhi roads." The court further held that the· "interpretation" sought to be given by respondent no.1 to the relevant Rules D would also lead to absurd results, if implemented. The result would be that while respondent no.1 would entertain the bids in respect of goods carriage which are not even Bharat Stage- I compliant or are Bharat Stage-I and II compliant and are manufactured before 1.4.2005, it would not entertain bids in respect of goods carriage which are relatively new and are manufactured after 1.4.2005 and are also Euro-II/Bharat Stage- ... II compliant

......,.' "' 14. According to the appellant, the High Court has misconstrued and misread the notification dated 20.10.2004 which was made expressly for the purpose of controlling pollution within the National Capital Region in stages. The fact of older .vehicles manufactured prior to 1.4.2005 being permitted to ply does not militate or discriminate against the prohibition of plying vehicles manufactured after 1.4.2005 which r ... were not Bharat Stage-Ill complaint, because they fell in different classes. The classification was necessitated on account of the fact that all vehicles could not have been prohibited from plying in one stroke as that would have created total chaos in the H

722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A National Capital Region. -r-·

15Copy pinpoint15. The appellant also submitted that the policy behind the notification was that in future, older vehicles would be phased out on completion of 12 years from their date of manufacture automatically and newer vehicles would necessarily have to B comply with Bharat Stage-Ill norms so that gradually the emission norms would improve and in 12 years all vehicles would be at least Bharat Stage-Ill compliant. The appellant submitted that the notification dated 20.1.2009 issued by the ,L Central Government adding the following proviso to sub-rule 7 c of Rule 90 the Central Motor Vehicles Rules :

"Provided that where such vehicle is registered in the National Capital Region, it shall not pick up or set down goods between two points situated in the National Capital D Region unless it conforms to the mass emission standards (Bharat Stage-Ill) specified in sub-rule (14). of rule 115."

16Copy pinpoint16. According toJ_fle_appellant, the clarificatory amendment made it abundantly clear that even vehicles possessing a national permit, but manufactured after 1.4:2005 cannot ply E within the National Capital Region unless they are Bharat Stage-Ill compliant. According to the app~llant, this classification subserves the object of the notification, namely, the gradual . ·improvement of the environment in the National Capital Region )I' by providing for a gradual induction of Bharat Stage-Ill emission , F norms compliant vehicles and gradual phasing out of the old ... vehicles simultaneously. Therefore, there is a clear nexus of the classification with the object of the legislation.

17Copy pinpoint17. The appellant has placed reliance Or) the judgment of G this court in Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia & Others etc. v. Union of India & Others (1969) 2 SCC 166 para 26 wherein the court held thus: ~ - "26 .......When a law is challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution it is necessary in the first place to H ...

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 723 SUNIL BANSAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

ascertain the policy underlying the statute and the object A -~ intended to be achieved by it. Having ascertained the policy and object of the Act the Court has to apply a dual test in examining its validity (1) whether the classification

- is rational and based upon an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others that are left out of the group and (2) whether B

the basis of differentiation has any rational nexus or relation with its avowed policy and object. ... "

18Copy pinpoint18. The appellant submitted that respondent no.1 in fact purchased the vehicles which do not conform with Bharat Stage- c Ill norms even though they had been manufactured after the notification dated 20.10.2004 and sought to circumvent it by

- ~ getting national permits.

19Copy pinpoint19. In other words, the main submission of the appellant has been that the entire notification is meant to achieve the D

object of reducing pollution in consonance with the directions ..... ' issued by this court. The said directions cannot be defeated by merely obtaining National, Inter-State or All India Tourist Permits. According to the appellant, the notification makes it crystal clear that the vehicles can ply in Delhi which are manufactured on or after 1.4.2005 complying with BS-Ill ~ emission norms. According to the appellant after the notification ,, - date 20.10.2004, there is no room for any controversy and the High Court has totally misread and misconstrued the notification and consequently, the judgment of the High Court is, therefore, liable to be set aside. ·

20Copy pinpoint20. The respondent submitted that vide notification GSR 686-(E) dated 20th October, 2004. issued by the Central Government Euro-Ill/Bharat Stage-Ill Emission norms were G J... introduced only in few cities including the National Capital Region. As per the said notification vehicles manufactured after 1.4.2005 had to comply with emission norms of Euro-111/B.S.- Ill. An exception was provided to such notification according to which the vehicles getting a registrc:it ...,, 1 under the Inter-State H

724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q09] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Permits or National Permits or All India Tourist Permits within the National Capital Region and certain other selected cities were exempted from the compliance of Bharat Stage-Ill emission norms and they were allowed to be governed by Bharat Stage-II emission norms. This was done for reason, the B petroleum companies could not provide fuel required for the ... Euro-Ill vehicle all over India, as such national permit vehicles had to travel through many cities where such notification was not applicable. Therefore, s~ch exemption was given only to the vehicles which were moving/plying outside the cities where the c present notification was not applicable.

21Copy pinpoint21. According to the respondents, the combined reading of the aforesaid notifications and the judgment, it can be said that the vehicles even if they do not conform to Euro-I/Bharat Stage-I emissions norms if manufactured prior to 1.6.1999 and D ·. within 15 years can ply as per their permits. The decision to allow such vehicles which aie iess than 15 years old, even if they do not conform to any of the emissions n~:ms, is Intended to phase out old vehicles in progressive manner while addressing the concern of adhering to emission norms to control vehicular pollution by not allowing any fresh registration of vehicles which are not conforming to emissions norms applicable according to their manufacturing date.

22Copy pinpoint22. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the impugned judgment, provisions of the Act, relevant notifications and the Motor Vehicles Rules. '

23Copy pinpoint23. The entire controversy . has to be properly comprehended in proper perspective. The notifications issued by the Central Government were issued in pursuant to the directions of this court to achieve the object of reducing pollution in the National Capital Region. As per the clear interpretation of the notification in issu~. only those vehicles will ply in National Capital Region which were manufactured on or after 1.4.2005 and are complying with BS-Ill norms. The vehicles manufactured prior to 1.4.2005 and complying with BS-I and

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 725 SUNIL BANSAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] BS-II norms but are not more than 15 years old can also ply. A --'i- This notification was issued to reduce vehicular pollution in a phased manner. By one stroke, the legislature could not have prohibited all vehicles plying in the city which did not have BS- Ill compliant as that would have created total chaos, therefore, it was introduced in a phased manner as has been done in the B impugned notification.

24Copy pinpoint24. The High Court by its impugned judgment dated 29.10.2007 has held that respondent no.1 herein is entitled to participate in the tender process initiated by the appellant herein, offering four wheeled vehicles manufactured on or after c 1.4.2005 which are Euro-II/ Bharat Stage-II compliant and having national permits/ Inter-state permits.

25Copy pinpoint25. However, a perusal of the notification in question i.e. GSR 686 (E) dated 20.10.2004 which was issued for the D purpose of controlling pollution within the National Capital -i Region in phased manner, makes it quite clear that the vehicles manufactured prior to 1.4.2005 being permitted to ply does not anyway militate or discriminate against the prohibition of plying vehicles manufactured after 1.4.2005 which were not Bharat E Stage-Ill compliant as they clearly fell in different classe~. Further, the other notification GSR 37(E) dated 20.1.2009 which inter-alia inserts proviso to sub-rule (7) in Rule 90 clarifies • that where such vehicle is registered in the National Capital " Region, it shall not pick up or set down goods between two points situated in the National Capital Region unless it conforms F

to the mass emission standards (Bharat Stage-Ill).

26Copy pinpoint26. The aforesaid classification is essential in view of the fact that all vehicles could not have been prohibited from plying G' on road in one stroke. Therefore, there is a clear nexus of the classification with the objects sought to be achieved by the legislation. The rationale behind the aforesaid notification is to phase out the older vehicles automatically in due course and newer vehicles would necessarily have to comply with Bharat Stage-Ill norms in order to graduall~, i'lcrease the emission H

726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. ~

A norms thereby curbing air pollution as per the directions issued -r~ by this Court in M.C. Mehta's case (supra). Clearly, the aforesaid classification in the notification intends to gradually improve the environment by providing a mechanism for a gradual induction of Bharat-Ill emission norms. In view of the B same, if we accept the contention of the respondent the same would amount to negation of the direction of this Court in M. C. Mehta's case (supra) and would also frustrate the effect of the notifications dated 20.10.2004 and 20.1.2009. Further, in the absence of any challenge to the validity of the proviso to sub- c rule (7) of Rule 90 inserted by Notification dated 20.1.2009, the said provision has to be held valid and must be given full effect. It is to be noted· that the view we have taken here is the only possible and intended view which can be inferred from a reading of the amended provisions which is of clarificatory nature. D )- I

27Copy pinpoint27. In our considered view, the High Court has misread and misconstrued the notification. Cons~quently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned ;t:dgment of the High Court is set aside. E

28Copy pinpoint28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. 4

N.J. Appeal allowed. )'