LexAVISHEK GOENKA versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 1126 A AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. IA NOS. 4, 5, IA NOS. 6-8, IA. NOS. 9-11, 12, 13, 14 AND 15 B IN c Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2011 AUGUST 3, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.) Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule 100 - By judgment dated 27th April, 2012 passed in writ petition (civil) no.265 of 2011, Supreme Court had prohibited the use of black films of any Visual Light Transmission (VL T) percentage or any o other material upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses of all vehicles throughout the country - Supreme Court took the view that Rule 100 does not permit use of any other material except the safety glass 'manufactured as per the requirements of law' - Applications E for modification !clarification of the judgment dated 27th Apri/"- 2012 - Held: Liable to be dismissed - In terms of Rule 100, no material including films of any VLT can be pasted on the safety glasses of the car and this law is required to be enforced - Enforcement of law, if causes any inconvenience, is no ground for rendering a provision on the statute book to be F unenforceable - Individual inconvenience cannot be a ground· for giving the law a different interpretation - The expression 'maintained' used in r. 100 has to be construed ejusdem generis to manufacture and cannot be interpreted in a manner that alterations to motor vehicles in violation of the specific G rules have been impliedly permitted under the language of the Rule itself - Suggestion given that the expression 'we prohibit the use of black film of any VLT percentage or any other material upon safety glasses' in Para 27 of the judgment H 1126 AVISHEK GOENKA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 1127 dated 27th April 2012 should be substituted by 'we prohibit A the use of black films of impermissible VLT percentage or any other material upon the safety glasses' would be in complete violation of the substantive part of the judgment - It is not the extent of VLT percentage of films which is objectionable under the Rules but it is the very use of black films or any other 8 material, which is impermissible to be used on the safety glasses -Consequential directions passed. - By judgment dated 27th April, 2012 passed in wriJ petition (civil) l'!_o.265 of 2011, this Court had prohibited the use of black films of any Visual Light Transmission C (VLT) percentage or any other material upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses of all vehicles throughout the country. The applicants filed the instant IAs, seeking D modification I clarification of the said judgm~nt dated 27th April 2012 on various grounds: •1) that they were not parties to the writ petition and were not aware of the proceedings before this Court and so their submissions could not be considered by the Court; 2) that the use of E films or even black films is permissible scientifically and in law; 3) that Rule 100(2) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 uses the expression 'maintained' which implies that safety glasses, including the wind screen, can be maintained with requisite VLT percentage even by use of F black films; and 4) that para 27 of the judgment dated 27th April 2012 nee~ modification by substituting the words 'use of black films of any VLT percentage' by the words 'use of black films of impermissible VLT percentage". G Dismissing the IAs, the Court HELD: 1. In the main Writ Petition no.265 of 2011, and even in these applications, there was no challenge to Rule 100 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. This Court H 1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A vide its judgment dated 27th April, 2012, had interpreted the said Rule de hors the other factors. Once this Court interprets a provision of law, the law so declared would be the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution. The law so declared is binding on all and 8 must be enforced in terms thereof. Having interpreted the Rule to mean that it is the safety glasses alone with ·requisite VLT that can be fixed in a vehicle, it is not for this Court to change the language of the said Rule. It would, primarily, be a legislative function and no role C herein, is to be performed by this Court. [Para 11] [1135- G-H; 1136-A-C] Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. (2000) 7 sec 269 - referred to. D 2. In these applications, some grounds were taken to demonstrate tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.