M.C. MEHTA ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 522 · Decided: 16-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
M.C. MEHTA ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 16, 1997 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ., B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 : 
Motor Vehicles Rule:,~ 1993: Rule 17. 
Public safety-Roal traffic-Directions issued by Supreme 
Cowt-Modificatio11s of-Issue of fwther directions---<:ommercial licences 
issued between 1993-95 be re--verified to weed out licences issued without 
fallowing the mies-Prescription of refresher training course as a condition for 
D renewal of licence for heavy vehicle-Pe1mit which has he en or is being used 
by any person other than the original grantee, without the express prior 
pennission of the grantee should not be renewed-Steps should be taken to 
remove all encroachments on roads-Appropriate authorities should frame 
guidcli11es for regulating processions 011 road-U11ion of llldia should file 
within two weeks the Action Plan for appointment of private persons to 
E enforce traffic safety laws and confer upon such people suitable 
powers-Transp01t as well as the Police Depmtme11ts to e11sure that the 
co11te11ts of this order are duly publicised so that the people using roads are 
made aware of the restrictions imposed-Publicity should be give11 to basic 
mies relati11g to safe driving. 
F 
School Children-Safety of-Educational i11stitutions should not use 
buses unless fitted with door.~ which ca11 be used-Such buses shall not be 
permitted to operate without a qualified conductor--f'rese11ce of at least one 
parent in such buses should be ensured-Vehicles transporting students 
should not be pennitted to carry children more tha11 1.5 times of registered 
G seating capacity-No fresh pennits in respect of the TSR, save and except by 
way of replacement of an existing working TSR with a new one, shall be 
granted. 
Communist Pmty of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar & Ors., JT (1997) 9 
H sec 101, referred to. 
522 
M.C. MEHTAv. U.0.1. 
523 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 13029 A 
of 1985 Etc. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
Ashok Desai, Attorney General, M.S. Usgaonkar, Additional 
Solicitor General, Harish N. Salve, Mukul Mudgal, Ms. Indra Sawhney, 
Deepak Dewan, A.K. Sharma, S. Wasim A. Qadri, A.D.N. Rao, Ms. 
Niranjana Singh, (P. Parmeswaran) for (MOEF), Rajiv Dutta, Hardeep 
Singh Anand, Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain, (M.C. Mehta) (NP) In-person, 
Ms. Seema Midha, S.N. Sikka, D.S. Mehra, (Ms. Anil Katiyar) for (Min. 
B 
c 
of Petroleum), D.K. Garg, Sanjeev Pabby, R.K. Maheshwari, Ms. Manju 
Bharti, R.K. Kapoor, P. Verma, S.K. Srivastava, B.R. Kapur, Anis Ahmed 
Khan, Vijay Panjwani, (R. Sasiprabhu, Anees Ahmed, Aditi Singh) for 
(GAIL), Pradeep Misra, Ms. Niti Dikshit, Sanjay Parikh, Kailash Vasdev, 
Mahabir Singh, Ms. Sushma Suri,. C.V. Snbba Rao, Ashok Mathur, D.M. 
Nargolkar, V.B. Saharya, Ejaz Maqbool, R.P. Gupta, K.K. Gupta L.K. 
Panday, S.B. Upadhyay, S.R. Setia, Salish Aggarwal and Ranjit Kumar for D 
the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
After hearing the learned amicus cwiae, the Additional Solicitor 
General and \he counsel representing certain other interests, we issue the 
following further directions, namely. 
(l) the figures in relation to issuance of commercial licences show 
that there is need lo verify commercial licences, which were issued during 
the period 1993-95. We, therefore, direct that all commercial licences 
issued during the period 1993-95 be re- verified by the Transport Depart-
ment lo weed out all such licences which have been issued without follow-
ing the R ulcs. 
(2) We are informed that a test has now been prescribed for issuance 
E 
F 
of new licences. We direct the Transport Department to prescribe a G 
suitable refresher training course as a condition for the renewal of any 
licence to drive a heavy vehicle. 
(3) The grantee of a permit cannot (without express prior permis-
sion), under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, either transfer his 
permit or to allow some other person to operate a vehicle on this permit. H 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A Any such use of permits - which really constitutes a trading in permits - is 
a patent violation of the Motor V chicles Act and the Rules and would 
render the permit liable to cancellation apart from other legal consequen-
ces. We direct the authorities not to renew any permit which has been or 
is being used by any person other than the original grantee, without the 
B express prior
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.