Advertisement
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih told the petitioner Nagalakshmi Laxmi Narayanan to file a representation before the appropriate authority and pursue a proper legal course.
“How can you challenge guidelines in an intervention application (IA)? You can challenge the guidelines substantively by a separate petition. This issue was dismissed by this court and the order was upheld by us regarding these vehicles. We cannot disturb the direction of the NGT (National Green Tribunal) in an IA. As long as the NGT order is not modified, we cannot do anything or clarify the order,” the top court told the counsel for Narayanan.
The apex court allowed the plea to be withdrawn in the M C Mehta case seeking to check pollution in the Delhi and adjoining areas and granted him the liberty to move court if an adverse order was passed.
Related Articles
Advertisement
“The applicant purchased a vehicle prior to the NGT’s 2015 order, and paid full taxes and registration fees for 15 years. The retrospective application of the guidelines to vehicles purchased before the 2015 order is arbitrary, violates the applicant’s legitimate expectation, and deprives the applicant of their right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution,” the plea claimed.
The plea contended the NGT hadn’t clarified if the rule would apply retrospectively or prospectively.
The petitioner said if a person purchased a vehicle before the order on April 7, 2015, passed by the NGT, what would be the fate of that vehicle.
“At the time of purchase, the buyer had paid the vehicle’s price and has also paid the registration charges for 15 years with the understanding that it could be used for 15 years. The subsequent NGT order created uncertainty regarding the continued use of such vehicles,” the plea said.
The intervention was sought in the M C Mehta case which was filed in 1985 seeking directions to check pollution in the national capital and adjoining areas.
The plea filed through advocate Charu Mathur said with the scrappage policy mandating early retirement of “overaged” vehicles (diesel older than 10 years, petrol older than 15 years), owners were not compensated for the unused portion of the registration fees.
“The policy treats all overaged vehicles as equally polluting, regardless of their actual emission levels. This lack of classification based on pollution levels, despite the availability of modern emission testing technologies, is arbitrary. Some older vehicles may still meet emission standards due to proper maintenance, yet they are forced to be scrapped,” the plea added.
According to the petitioner, the guidelines failed to consider the specific emission standards under which various vehicles were categorised and the blanket imposition of a 10-year limit for diesel vehicles and a 15-year limit for petrol vehicles without noting the applicable Bharat Stage (BS) emission norms was “arbitrary”.