ORDER
C.K. Thakker, C.J.
1. All the above Notices of Motion have been taken out by the Applicants for the reliefs prayed therein, inter alia, seeking extension of time granted by an order passed by a Division Bench on October 17, 2001 and again extended by a Division Bench by an order dated December 18, 2002.
2. Notice of Motion No. 150 of 2003 is taken out by Vahan Bachav Kriti Samiti, Brihan Mumbai Tempo Malak Sangh and Bus Owners Sangh, for modification of the order dated 18th December, 2002 and allowing contract carriage buses, tempos, trucks, trailors and other vehicles to convert their engines into Euro-II (Bharat Stage II). A further prayer is also made to direct Regional Transport Authorities not to cancel registration of transport vehicles which are more than fifteen years old which have not been converted to run on CNG/LPG fuel. Similar prayers have been made in other Notices of Motion also. In Notice of Motion No. 164 of 2003, a prayer is made to review the order passed by the Division Bench on October 17, 2001.
3. Chambers Summons No. 62 of 2003 is also filed by the applicants in Notice of Motion No. 150 of 2003 praying therein to join the applicants as party respondents or in the alternative to allow them to intervene in Writ Petition No. 1762 of 1999.
4. It may be stated at this stage that after full-fledged hearing, a Division Bench of this Court [B.P. Singh, C.J. (as His Lordship then was) and Mrs. Justice Ranjana Desai] passed an order on 17th October, 2001 by which several directions were issued to the authorities.
5. In paragraphs 13 and 15, the Court observed;
“The last category is the category of transport vehicles. The Committee has recommended that with effect from 1st January, 2001 all transport vehicles (except three-wheelers and BEST buses over the age of 15 years shall be scrapped, unless converted to clean fuel. As regards the transport vehicles over 8 years of age, it has recommended that they shall scrapped, unless converted to run on clean fuel, and the effective date recommended is 1st January, 2002. On the other hand, the State of Maharashtra has suggested 1st January, 2003 as the date for scrapping of transport vehicles more than 15 years old, and 1st January, 2005 as the effective date for scrapping of transport vehicles more than 8 years old. Mr. Cama, appearing on behalf of the Association, submitted that truck-owners were not in a position to make such a huge investment on the conversion of diesel engines to CNG/LPG. Moreover, purchase of a new vehicle would be wholly beyond the means of most of the truck owners, particularly when no substantial financial assistance has been promised by the State Government. Added to this, he submitted, the non-availability of CNG/LPG may further aggravate the situation. Having regard to all these aspects, even if such transport vehicles have to be phased out, a recommendation which he opposed, he submitted that sufficient time should be given to the truck-owners to convert their vehicles to run on clean fuel. We have seriously considered the request of Mr. Cama, and also taken into account the view of the State Government. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we accept the submission of the State Government that 1st January, 2003 should be the date for phasing out of transport vehicles more than 15 years old, unless converted to run on clean fuel. We are of the view that such transport vehicles may be operated till the 31st December, 2002, but with effect from 1st January, 2003, all transport vehicles over the age of 15 years, with the exception of BEST buses, shall be phased out, unless converted to run on CNG/LPG. So far as the transport vehicles more than 8 years old are concerned, the State Government has suggested that the effective date of phase out should be 1st January, 2005. Mr. Rustomjee, appearing for the petitioner, strongly objected, and submitted that the phase out date should be much earlier than what is suggested by the State Government. We are of the view that such transport vehicles which are over the age of 8 years may be operated till 31st December, 2003, but with effect from 1st January, 2004, all transport vehicles over the age of 8 years, with the exception of BEST buses, shall be phased out, unless converted to run on CNG/LPG. These directions have to be complied by the State and its authorities. We further clarify that no vehicle registered outside Mumbai shall be registered in Mumbai which does not meet the age limits set out above or does not run on CNG/LPG. The Office of Transport Commissioner shall also ensure that vehicles are not converted from transport to non-transport category in order to defeat the age limits set out above. The Office of the Transport Commissioner shall ensure that the phasing out of the above-mentioned vehicles is commenced in a phased manner from 1st March, 2002 onwards. The phasing out shall be done in such a manner that certain number of vehicles are phased our or converted every month so as to ensure that all the vehicles in question are completely phased out by the deadline fixed above. For this purpose, the Transport Commissioner shall frame a programme of phasing out with monthly/bi-monthly targets to be achieved.
15. The Office of the Transport Commissioner, the Police authorities and all other concerned authorities shall ensure that the time-frame in this order is strictly adhered to. The State of Maharashtra shall ensure that the directions in this order and those that may be passed hereafter from time to time are brought to the notice of the public through the print and electronic media.”
6. The said order, therefore, stipulated phasing out all transport vehicles latest by 31st December, 2003 unless converted to run on clean fuel. It appears that nothing was done by the respondent-authorities or by owners/operators of transport vehicles.
7. In December 2002, Notices of Motion Nos. 461 of 2002 and 528 of 2002 were taken out by the State of Maharashtra and Maharashtra Vahatuk Sena (Mahasangha) for extension of five years. The Division Bench, to which one of us was a party (C.K. Thakker, C.J.), disposed of those Notices of Motion on December 18, 2002 by granting extension of three months i.e. upto 31st March, 2003. While disposing of the Motions, the Division Bench observed that rest of the directions in the order dated 17th October, 2001 would remain as they were. Thus, by 31st March, 2003, all transport vehicles were required to be phased out unless converted to run on CNG-LPG.
8. The present Notices of Motion have been taken out by the applicants for extension of the said period of conversion to Euro-II.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. The learned counsel for the applicants in Notices of Motion have submitted that if the orders passed by this Court in October, 2001 and in December, 2002 are implemented, serious prejudice would be caused to them and virtually the applicants as well as their family members would starve. It was stated that though they had tried their best to get their vehicles converted to run on CNG/LPG, the vehicles could not be converted to run on CNG/LPG without there being any fault on their part and the said factor would not come in their way in getting further extension. In the Notices of Motion, a prayer is made to grant permission tog et their vehicles converted into Euro-II engines which can be fitted in these vehicles. But even for that, sufficient time would be needed as it is a long process and even if immediate actions are taken, it will not be possible for the applicants to get the vehicles converted into Euro-II before the dead line fixed by this Court. Hence, sufficient long time be granted to them.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly objected to the prayer made by the applicants. It was submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench in October, 2001 was not an order of conversion but of phasing out vehicles. It was observed by the Division Bench that all transport vehicles which had completed 15 years should be phased out. As an alternative, it was observed that they could be converted to run on CNG/LPG. Thus, the main direction related to phasing out, unless converted to run on clean fuel. Therefore, no question of extension of time would arise.
12. It was also submitted that when extension was sought in December, 2002, all the points were re-argued and reiterated before the Division Bench but were negatived by the Court. The Court stated in the said order that the State had not taken the matter seriously to implement the order of the Court. The Court was constrained to observe that the casual approach adopted by the State authorities was apparent from the prayer made by the State authorities in which extension of five years time was sought which was not granted even at the initial stage by the Court. The Court noted that there was no whisper about the steps taken by the authorities for enforcing the order passed in October, 2001. Mr. Rustomjee, even at that stage pointed out that the petitioner had drawn the attention of the authorities vide communication dated November 12, 2002 for taking steps so that the order of October 17, 2001 could be implemented.
13. Taking into account rival contentions of the parties and the fact that there were more than 20000 transport vehicles and a prayer for extension of time was made almost at the eleventh hour, if it would be rejected, it would adversely affect public at large, time was extended upto 31st March, 2003. Mr. Rustomjee submitted that now again a similar attempt has been made. He, therefore, prayed that the Notices of Motion deserve to be rejected.
14. An affidavit is filed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Transport) on 27th March, 2003, supporting the prayer made on behalf of transport vehicle association. In the said affidavit, once again a prayer is made to extend time upto 1st January, 2008 which was made in Notice of Motion No. 461 of 2002 and was criticised, commented upon and rejected by the Division Bench.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances in their entirety, we are of the view that the applicants do not deserve extension of time as prayed by them. It is clear from what has been stated earlier that the directions were issued by the Division Bench in October, 2001. The Court, after considering submissions on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent-authorities and transport vehicle associations, who were before the Court, granted time upto December 31, 2002. With effect from 1st January, 2003 transport vehicles over fifteen years were to be phased out, unless converted to run on clean fuel.
16. As observed in the order dated 18th December, 2002, virtually no steps were taken either by the authorities or by the association for implementation of the orders and carrying out directions issued by this Court and at the last moment, the State authorities as well as Mahasangha approached this Court for extension of time, the Court noted that no serious attempts were made by the applicants for conversion of their vehicles to run on clean fuel. However, taking into account the fact that if extension would not be granted, public at large would suffer particularly when such transport vehicles were dealing in transportation of essential commodities also, extension was granted upto 31st March, 2003.
17. It is thus clear that orders passed by this Court were not taken seriously at least till 31st December, 2002. Only thereafter between 1st January, 2003 and 31st March, 2003, some steps were taken to which reference has been made by the applicants.
18. Mr. Rustomjee is, therefore, right in submitting that this is the modus operandi adopted by the applicants and unfortunately the State Authorities are supporting them. To us, Mr. Rustomjee is also right in submitting that in spite of observations made by this Court against the State Authorities while disposing of Notice of Motion No. 161 of 2002 wherein a prayer was made to grant extension of five years upto 2008, even now an affidavit is filed by the same Officer reiterating the said demand of extension of five years i.e. upto 1st January, 2008. Mr. Rustomjee submitted and, in our opinion rightly, that on the one hand the State Authorities have not challenged the validity of the order of this Court in Notice of Motion No. 461 of 2002 while on the other hand, a prayer which had been negatived by this Court has been repeated. It is not expected of the State Authorities to make such a prayer by filing an affidavit once again when in earlier proceedings, such prayer was refused.
19. Looking to the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary, it is further clear that as per the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in October, 2001, sufficient publicity was given to the said order through the media by the Office of the Transport Commissioner. It was also stated that the directions were displayed prominently on the Notice boards of Regional Transport Offices in Mumbai. According to the deponent, certificates of fitness of trucks and buses completing the age of 15 years or above on 31st December, 2002 were renewed by Regional Transport Offices in Mumbai only upto 31st December, 2002 so as to ensure that those vehicles, unless converted to run on clean fuel as per the directions of the Court, do not ply on road with effect from 1st January, 2003. It was also stated that owners of commercial vehicles like trucks, tempos and buses affected by order dated 17th October, 2001 were served “individually” with a notice calling upon them to comply with the directions contained therein.
20. In view of the above statements made by the deponent in the affidavit, it is abundantly clear that the transport vehicle operators were informed and were aware about the order passed by this court. It was, therefore, obligatory on them to comply with the order dated 17th October, 2001 before the period was over. Nothing, however, was done by them. At the fag end of the said period, a prayer was made for extension of time and the Court considering larger public interest extended it upto 31st March, 2003. Now once again, a similar prayer is made by the applicants in the present proceedings for extension of time or to allow them to convert their vehicles to Euro-II engines. Since no serious attempts have been made either by the State Authorities or by the transport operators, in our opinion, prayer cannot be granted. At the same time, however, again they are before the Court virtually at the last moment and, as stated by them, thousands of vehicles would not be able to ply if prayer for extension is altogether rejected. The Court in the circumstances has to keep in mind inconvenience of public at large. Keeping in mind the larger public interest as also defaults on the State Authorities as well as transport operators, we are of the view that it would be appropriate if breathing time is granted to the applicants. Accordingly extension is granted upto 31st July, 2003, on condition that every such transport operator will pay an amount of Rs. 500/- per vehicle per day with effect from 1st April, 2003 till 31st July, 2003, or till the vehicle is converted to run on clean fuel as per the order dated 17th October, 2001. Such a condition was imposed by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors, .
21. The plea on the part of the transport operators that they should be allowed to instal Euro-II engines on commercial vehicles which are over fifteen years old as an alternative to complying with the directions of this Court cannot be accepted. We are constrained to observe that this is only one more attempt, and a belated one at that, to avoid the obligation of complying with the order of this Court dated 17th October, 2001. The directions which were issued by this Court in that order clearly stipulated that 1st January, 2003 shall be the date for phasing out of transport vehicles more than fifteen years old unless converted to run on clean fuel. Indeed, this Court recorded that it was accepting the submission of the State Government to that effect. The underlying rationale of the order of this court is clear to our mind; the principle of obsolescence must apply to critically polluting vehicles and fifteen years is by all standards a reasonable period after which commercial vehicles which are used extensively, in difficult conditions, with significant wear and tear should be phased out. The only other option contemplated in the order of this court is “unless such vehicles are converted to run on CNG/LPG”. The State Government, other regulatory authorities as well as the transporters were, therefore, clearly aware of the fact that approximately one year and three months of the passing of the order of this Court, they would have to phase out commercial vehicles over fifteen years of age unless they were converted to run on CNG/LPG. In so far as the Transport Commissioner was concerned, he was expressly directed to commence the process of phasing out from 1st March, 2002 by laying down monthly/bimonthly targets so as to achieve the ultimate result. Neither the transport operators nor for that matter the regulatory authorities took any steps in compliance with the order of this Court. However, in view of the fact that a large number of supply vehicles was involved, an extension was granted on 18th December, 2002 until 31st March, 2003. The court must express its anguish at the fact that no concrete steps have been taken to ensure that the directions issued on 17th October, 2001 are complied with within the extended period. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bombay Environmental Action Group has drawn the attention of the Court to an order dated 28th July, 1998 passed by a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court, consisting of Mr. Justice A.S. Anand, Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal and Mr. Justice V.N. Khare (as the learned Justices then were) in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (W.P. (Civil) No. 1302 of 1985). In the order, the Supreme Court had granted a period of three months for the implementation of directions to restrict the plying of commercial vehicles in Delhi. In the present case, more than sufficient time has now elapsed and it can only be expected that compliance with the order of this Court has to be made. Fifteen year old commercial vehicles have been mandated to be phased out as far back as on 17th October, 2001. The modification now sought, almost a year and half later, to substitute the earlier directions by permitting the installation of Euro-II engines on these obsolete vehicles cannot be accepted.
22. Counsel for the applicants has sought to contend that adequate supplies of CNG may not be forthcoming. Mahanagar Gas Limited is before the Court and has assured the Court, through its learned counsel, that it has already commenced the process of providing sufficient number of filling stations. An affidavit has been filed before the Court by MGL. MGL stated therein that as of December, 2002, it has set up 45 CNG outlets, an increase of 73% over the 26 outlets which were functioning in April, 2002. The dispensing points have increased by 120% and compression capacity by 129% over this period. The Court has been informed that at the Anik Depot., the CNG dispensing facility has been made available for BEST buses. MGL has stated before the Court that the dispensing stations at Sion and Mumbai Central will be commissioned within about ten days since all the work has been completed. Similarly, work on the facility at Kurla has also been completed and the licence from the Municipal Corporation is awaited. We order and direct that the Municipal Corporation shall process the proposal expeditiously and take a decision within a period of two weeks from today. The Court has also been informed that as far back as in September, 2002, MGL had made a proposal to the State Government for the allotment of 17 plots for installing dispensing stations. We order and direct that the authorities of the State Government and the Municipal Corporation shall coordinate their efforts together with MGL so as to ensure that steps are taken expeditiously for the installation of a sufficient number of CNG dispensing stations.
23. So far as the prayer regarding intervention is concerned, it is allowed and the applicants in Chamber Summons No. 62 of 2003 are permitted to intervene in the main matter. Chamber Summons is disposed of accordingly. Application for intervention in Notice of Motion No. 156 of 2003 is also allowed.
24. In Notice of Motion No. 164 of 2003, a prayer is made to condone delay of 496 days in filing Review Petition. At the time of hearing of the Notice of Motion, however, the Counsel stated that the applicant-review petitioner has moved the Supreme Court of India by filing SLP (Civil) No. D. No. 5039 of 2003. It was also stated that it would be listed on or about 17th April, 2003. A letter written by an Advocate of the Supreme Court is also produced on record. In view of the above statement and letter, in our opinion, no order is necessary in the Motion and the Notice of Motion stands dismissed.
25. The prayer for modification of the earlier order of this Court dated 17th October, 2001 is accordingly rejected. However, the prayer for extension of time is allowed in the terms hereinbefore provided, and subject to the condition stipulated earlier. All the Notices of Motion are accordingly disposed of.
Parties be given copies of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar/Private Secretary.