Fuel ban on old vehicles: Dealers oppose clause to penalise petrol pump owners, move Delhi HC
Justice Mini Pushkarna on Wednesday sought a response from the Delhi Transport Department and the Commission for Air Quality Management in NCR and Adjoining Areas in this regard. The court will hear the matter next on September 8.
The petitioners have objected to a clause, which seeks to prosecute and penalise petrol pump or fuel station owners under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if found to be in contravention of the government's stipulations for not providing fuel to end-of-life vehicles.
Highlighting that they are' not fundamentally opposed' to the government's directions restricting fuel supply to the end-of-life vehicles, and are otherwise 'willing to extend all forms of cooperation', the petitioners submitted their only objection is to the 'excessive, irrational and disproportionate liability being fastened upon them by way of seeking to prosecute and penalise them under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even in situations where non-compliance may be due to sheer inadvertence'.
They submitted that the government's order and SOP have 'burdened the petrol pump owners and their attendants, with the additional responsibility of implementing the said rule without them being necessarily equipped or authorised under any law to carry out such a responsibility'.
They further said that the orders are 'arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and disproportionate for the reason that they seek to penalise the petrol pump owners for acts which may arise from sheer inadvertence and for reasons which are beyond the control of the petrol pump owners and their attendants'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Centre asks states to crack down on manufacturers selling sub-standard helmets
New Delhi, Jul 5 (PTI) The Centre has asked states to take strict action on manufacturers and retailers selling sub-standard helmets to ensure the safety of two-wheeler riders. "The Department of Consumer Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) appeal to consumers across the country to use only BIS-certified helmets," an official statement said on Saturday. The department also called for strict enforcement against the manufacture or sale of helmets without BIS certification, it added. "With over 21 crore two-wheelers on Indian roads, rider safety is paramount," the department said, adding that wearing a helmet is mandatory under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It pointed out that the sale of sub-standard helmets compromises safety. A Quality Control Order has been in force since 2021, mandating ISI-marked helmets certified under BIS standards for all two-wheeler riders. As of June 2025, there are 176 manufacturers across India holding valid BIS licenses for protective helmets. "The Department has observed that many helmets sold on roadsides lack the mandatory BIS certification, posing significant risks to consumers and numerous fatalities in road accidents," the statement said. To enforce quality standards, the BIS conducts regular factory and market surveillance. During the last fiscal year, more than 500 helmet samples were tested, and more than 30 search-and-seizure operations were carried out for misuse of the BIS Standard Mark. In one Delhi operation, over 2,500 non-compliant helmets were seized from 9 manufacturers with expired or cancelled licences. Similar action at 17 retail and roadside locations led to the seizure of around 500 substandard helmets. Earlier, the Department of Consumer Affairs had written to District Collectors (DCs) and District Magistrates (DMs) to launch a nationwide campaign and take stern action against manufacturers and retailers who sell non-compliant helmets for two-wheeler riders. BIS branch offices were instructed to engage continuously with district administrations and police departments to support this campaign.
Indian Express
7 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘How do we earn a living?': On strike, Karkardooma Court lawyers oppose shifting of digital courts
Protesting the decision to shift the judges of 34 digital NI Act (Negotiable Instruments Act) courtrooms that hear cheque bounce cases from six court complexes in Delhi to the Rouse Avenue court complex, lawyers at the Karkardooma Court complex decided to abstain from work for a fifth day straight on Friday. The lawyers have been on a hunger strike for the last two days. 'First, our labour courts were shifted, now our cheque bounce courts have been shifted…we are not fancy lawyers. How do we earn a living?' advocate V K Singh, president of the Shahdara Bar Association (SBA), told The Indian Express. 'All the lawyers in our courts are people residing in the Trans Yamuna (areas). Some of us barely get Rs 20-30,000 for an entire case. Many of us are dependent on cheque bounce cases. Is this justice at your doorstep? Things were running smoothly… but now we are all anxious,' Singh said. Of the 34 courtrooms, nine are from Dwarka, seven from Tis Hazari, six from Saket, five from Karkardooma Court, four from Rohini, and three from Patiala House Court. While the judges of the respective courtrooms will be shifted to Rouse Avenue Court, the court staff (readers, ahlmads and stenographers) will continue to operate from their respective districts. The rooms for the 34 judges have been allocated on the seventh floor of the Rouse Avenue court complex, which is situated near the ITO Metro station in Central Delhi. Earlier, the coordination committee of all district court bar associations had decided to abstain from work. On June 7, however, they called off their strike after the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court assured them in a meeting that all digital courts would function strictly as digital platforms only and that all the remaining proceedings and judicial work would be conducted exclusively in the regular local courts. In a May 30 notification, the Delhi High Court, which is behind the move, cited 'optimal utilisation of available infrastructure and resources' and 'inadequate space' to justify the shift of digital cheque bounce courts. 'The remaining arrangement, including support staff deployment and recording of evidence from the respective District Court Complexes, shall continue as per the previous directions/practice until adequate and permanent space is made available in the District Courts concerned to which these Digital NI Act Courts ultimately belong,' the notification dated May 30 read. 'However, these Courts shall continue to be under the administrative control /supervision/ jurisdiction of the districts concerned to which these courts belong. The readers, ahlmads, and judicial records of these Digital NI Act Courts would also continue to function from their original districts so as to avoid any inconvenience to the litigants, lawyers, and stakeholders,' the notification added. This notification was not enough to quell the anxiety of the lawyers in Northeast Delhi's Karkardooma Courts. 'Shifting of digital courts for lack of infrastructure violates the territorial jurisdiction jurisprudence,' said advocate Paras Jain, who practises in Karkardooma Court. 'If any litigant or advocate wants to report anything of emergent nature physically to the judge, they will not be able to communicate this…there is still confusion as to how evidence will be recorded before the judge sitting at Rouse Avenue Court,' he added. 'Lack of virtual facilities also creates gaps between the judges and litigants.' In a notice dated July 4, the lawyers of SBA decided to abstain from work on Saturday. 'It has been unanimously resolved by the Executive Committee of Shahdara Association (Regd.)., to abstain from work on 04.07.2025 in Karkardooma Courts, Delhi,' the notice read. 'It is further resolved that the Executive Committee of Shahdara Bar Association (Regd)., and its members shall continue the Hunger Strike from 05.07.2025 near Facilitation Center as a mark of protest against shifting of Digital Court, N.I. Act,' it added. 'Hence, all lawyers are requested to Co-operate & not to appear before any court either physically or virtually. In case any lawyer is found appearing physically or virtually in any court strict action shall be initiated against him/her,' the notice stated with a request urging judges to cooperate and not pass any adverse orders. Of the 15 lakh pending cases—2 lakh civil and 13 lakh criminal—across the capital's lower courts, 4.5 lakh, or over 30 per cent, are cheque bounce claims.
Indian Express
12 hours ago
- Indian Express
Excise policy scam case: What's the fear in supplying list of ‘unrelied documents', Delhi HC asks CBI
'What is the fear' in providing the list of 'unrelied upon documents (URDs)', the Delhi High Court orally asked the CBI on Friday while hearing a petition filed by the central agency against a May 22 trial court order in connection with the excise policy scam case. The trial court had directed that summons to produce documents or summons to individuals must be included in the list of URDs. 'Unrelied' documents are collected by probe agencies at the time of investigation but not used as evidence by the prosecution. The CBI has challenged the May 22 Rouse Avenue special CBI court order, which had stated that the court will proceed with the arguments on charges 'once the relied-upon digital evidence copy and the list of URDs are supplied to the accused individuals'. The trial court had reasoned that 'as the CBI must provide copies of relied-upon digital data currently with CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory), this court cannot yet hear arguments on charge, given that all relied-upon documents must be available to the accused before charges'. It had directed that 'all notices under Section 91/160 CrPC and written communications sent by CBI to others, including witnesses and accused, and all written communications/documents received by CBI concerning those notices/written communications, must be included in the list of URDs if CBI does not intend to rely on them in this trial'. Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) empowers police officers to summon individuals to assist in the probe. Directing that the list of URDs should be filed in court, and copies of the list must be supplied to all accused, the trial court had directed that the investigating officer (IO) 'shall file an affidavit confirming that no other such notice/communication/document is omitted from the relied-upon documents or the URD'. Opposing the direction to the IO, the CBI, while arguing before Justice Ravinder Dudeja, also opposed the direction that notices issued to and statements made by the accused under Section 160 of CrPC — before they were considered to be an accused in the case — be considered a part of URDs. The CBI's counsel told HC, 'We have already given whatever we are relying upon, the (special CBI) judge wants the entire data to be given… CrPC sections 91 and 160 are tools of investigation, how can it be given? It is not part of the evidence collected.' 'There cannot be a procedure in the Delhi excise case which is different from any other case… (IO of) CBI has to file an affidavit for (filing all unrelied communication/notices) everything? It is unheard of… Some people have intimate messages and videos, some have competitive information (as businesses are also accused in the case)… There are privacy concerns… Inter se, conflict of privacy in URDs should not stall the trial,' the counsel added. Further opposing the supply of CrPC Section 160 notices and statements of accused recorded prior to them being made accused, the CBI added, 'Once they have been made accused, that statement is not part of relied upon or unrelied upon documents, because those statements can also trample upon somebody's right to self-incrimination.' Justice Dudeja, however, asked the CBI's counsel, '…Point is, why should it not be given… Disclosure statements of accused persons are not made part of the record… Why did you record the statement of the accused at the first instance if you were not going to rely, or not rely on such statements? You can provide the list (of URDs).' While CBI contended that if included in the list of URDs, 'it will then be seen by everybody else', Justice Dudeja orally responded, 'Show then… what is the fear… What is the prejudice being caused to you in case you hand over the copies of the notices under CrPC Section 160? Why do you not want to share these notices?' The CBI contended, 'It is not about fear, it's about what is relevant and not… (If the trial court's directions are upheld) what will happen is, it will become a practice (of including CrPC Section 160 notices) which does not exist at all… It is a roving inquiry.' A defence advocate for the accused, Rajat Bharadwaj, contended before the court, 'The fear is the entire frivolous investigation they have done will come all out in the open. Since past six months, they are not supplying us these documents… thereby these directions have been passed by the trial court.' Another defence advocate, Adit Pujari, added, 'This is a bogey being played (by CBI)… that supply of the list is going to delay arguments on charge…' While an order is awaited, Justice Dudeja indicated that the court is not inclined to stay the order till a status report is filed, all accused are served and their responses to the CBI's petition come on record. The court also indicated that it is agreeable only to the aspect of staying the direction that requires the IO to file an affidavit before the trial court.
