Kailash Kumar Agarwal vs State of Assam

Ajit Singh, C.J. :- Mr. Dhrub Mehta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Devashis Baruah, learned counsel and Ms. Nirmala Upahay, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. B.S. Goyal, learned Government Advocate, Assam, Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, Mr. Utpal Rajbongshi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for Transport Department, Mr. Sandeep Narain, learned counsel and Mr. Rakesh Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner is a practicing Chartered Accountant in Guwahati. In the present Public Interest Litigation, he has essentially prayed that Respondent No.2-Union of India and Respondent No.3 � The Automotive Research Association of India, be directed to subject all four wheeler motor vehicles coming under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 to undergo the compliance under Rule 126A of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.

Rules 126 and 126A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, read as under :-

"126. Prototype of every motor vehicle to be subject to test.- On and from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993, every manufacturer or importer of motor vehicles other than trailers and semi-trailers shall submit the prototype of the vehicle to be manufactured or imported by him for test by the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India or Automotive Research Association of India, Pune, or the Central Farm Machinery Testing and Training Institute, Budni (MP) or the Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, or the Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune, or the International Centre for Automotive Technology, Manesar or the Northern Region Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Hissar for testing of combine harvester and such other agencies as may be specified by the Central Government for granting a certificate by that agency as to the compliance of provisions of the Act and these rules:

Provided that the procedure for type approval and certification of motor vehicles for compliance to these rules shall be in accordance with the AIS:017-2000, as amended from time to time:

Provided further that in respect to the vehicles imported into India as completely built units (CBU), the importer shall submit a vehicle of that particular model and type to the testing agencies for granting a certificate by that agency as to the compliance to the provision of the Act and these rules.

126A. The testing agencies referred to in rule 126 shall in accordance with the procedures laid down by the Central Government also conduct tests on vehicles drawn from the production line of the manufacturer to verify whether these vehicles conform to the provisions of rules made under section 110 of the Act:

Provided that in case the number of vehicles sold in India for a given base model and its variants (manufactured in India or imported to India) are less than 250 in any consecutive period of six months in a year, then such base model and its variants need not be subjected to the above test, if at least one model or its variants manufactured or imported by that manufacturer or importer, as the case may be, is subjected to such tests at least once in a year:

Provided further that, in case the number of base models and its variants manufactured/imported is more than one and if the individual base model and its variants are less than 250 in any consecutive period of six months in a year, then the testing agencies can pick up one of the vehicle out of such models and their variants once in a year for carrying out such test."

From the reading of above quoted Rules, it is clear that every manufacturer or importer of motor vehicle is required to submit the prototype of the vehicle for test by one of the vehicle testing agencies referred to in Rule 126. Also such testing agencies are required to conduct tests on vehicles drawn from the production line of the manufacturer to verify whether these vehicles conform to the provisions of rules made under section 110 of the Act.

Admittedly, there is no manufacturer or importer of motor vehicles in the State of Assam. Likewise, there is also not one testing agency referred to in Rule 126 in the State of Assam. Even the offices of Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 are located in Delhi and Pune, respectively. We, therefore, fail to understand why the petitioner has filed the petition here in Assam. We do not consider the present case as a genuine public interest litigation.

It is, accordingly, dismissed.