Delhi HC notice on plea over fine on fuel station owners
The Delhi government's May 13 order directed all fuel stations in the city not to dispense fuel to petrol vehicles older than 15 years and diesel vehicles older than 10 years. Any violation of the ban, the order said, would attract penalties under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which would entail a fine of ₹ 5,000 for the first offence and imprisonment up to one year or fine of ₹ 10,000 for the second offence.
On June 17, the government also issued standard operating procedures (SOPs) to enforce the ban. The SOPs required all fuel stations to maintain logs—manual or digital—of denied transactions and display signage informing customers of the ban, which formally came into effect on July 1.
However, the Delhi Petrol Dealers Association filed a petition arguing that fuel station owners are being unfairly saddled with enforcement responsibilities without being given the legal authority to do so. The association claimed that these duties amount to public law enforcement and are beyond the scope of private entities operating under licenses from oil marketing companies.
'By forcing such petrol pump owners to perform law enforcement duties, the impugned orders are undermining the Rule of Law which dictates that it is the ultimate responsibility of the State to prevent any illegal activity,' the petition stated. It further argued that the government's move is 'manifestly arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, and disproportionate,' as pump owners could be penalised for mistakes or oversights that may be out of their control.
A bench led by Justice Mini Pushkarna sought responses from the Delhi government and the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) and posted the matter for further hearing in September. The court's intervention comes amid heightened scrutiny over the implementation of vehicle emission norms in Delhi-NCR, with the ELV fuel ban seen as a key strategy in reducing vehicular pollution.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
Gujarat HC orders arrest of EU-sanctioned oil tanker at Alang
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has ordered the arrest of the crude oil tanker MT Conico Atlas, currently docked at Alang, after a shipping firm sued the vessel's owner over an alleged breach of a sale agreement. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The firm has claimed USD 4,342,233 in damages alleging that the vessel owners withheld information about sanctions on it by the European Union (EU) The petitioner, Global Maritime Limited, alleged that the vessel was falsely represented as free from international sanctions, when in fact it was sanctioned under multiple jurisdictions — including the United Kingdom, European Union, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The dispute stems from a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) signed on May 29 for the vessel's sale by the owner, Tachio Trading Limited. The initial buyer, Moorgate Maritime LLC — now known as Global Maritime Limited — paid AED 3,109,932 (approx. USD 846,690) as a deposit under the agreement. Global Maritime submitted that though the ship owner had claimed that the vessel was not under any sanction, but itt was found to be under sanctions by several countries. The petitioner claimed that since the ship was under sanctions from various jurisdictions, the MoA should be declared annulled. Meanwhile, one Shri Gautam Ship Breaking India Pvt Ltd invested in scrapping the vessel, it sailed to Alang for dismantling. However, upon its arrival at Alang on June 17, financial institutions refused to process the remaining payment due to its sanctioned status, Global Maritime submitted. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The petitioner's counsel assured the court that the company would compensate for any damage to the vessel caused by the arrest, as determined by the court. Following a preliminary hearing, Justice Mauna Bhatt directed Alang port authorities to arrest the vessel if the owner fails to pay the claimed amount. "The Port Officer and the Customs Authorities at Alang Port, Bhavnagar are directed to arrest the Defendant Vessel, MT Conico Atlas (IMO: 9288693), currently lying at Alang Port within Indian territorial waters, and to keep the Defendant Vessel under arrest until further orders of this Court," the court order states. The court has also issued a notice to the vessel owner and sought a reply by Sep 15, while clarifying that the defendants are free to approach the court before the returnable date, with prior notice to the plaintiff.
Economic Times
9 hours ago
- Economic Times
Insurance claims not restricted to third party in motor accidents: SC
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court held that motor vehicle insurance policy holders can claim compensation and referred the issue of claims against injury or death to the policyholder themselves in a road accident to a larger bench, saying that such cases have contradict judgements in the SC, while hearing the compensation plea of a minor girl, who lost both her parents in a car accident while her father was driving, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act could be invoked for such a claim, adding that it is a special provision which overrides not only all the provisions of the Act but also any other law in force for the time minor was provided with the compensation by the insurance company for the death of her mother but not for her father as he was himself the insured bench said: "... a claim under section 163A, as per the words employed in the provision, according to us covers every claim and is not restricted to a third party claim; without any requirement of establishing the negligence, if death or permanent disability is caused by reason of the motor accident. This would also take in the liability with respect to the death of an owner or a driver who stepped into the shoes of the owner, if the claim is made under section 163A dehors the statutory liability under section 147 or the contractual liability as reduced to writing in an insurance policy".The insurance company, however, had held that the petitioner, having succeeded to the estate of the owner of the vehicle who died in the accident cannot at the same time be the person who has the liability and is the recipient of the compensation."It would override the provisions under sections 147 & 149 along with the other provisions of the Act and the law regulating insurance as also the terms of the policy confining the claim with respect to an owner-driver to a fixed sum. This according to us is the intention of incorporating the non-obstante clause under Section 163A providing for no-fault liability claims , the compensation for which is restricted to the structured formula under the IInd Schedule. It is a beneficial piece of legislation brought in, keeping in mind the enhanced chances of an accident, resulting from the prevalence of vehicles in the overcrowded roads of today. It was a social security scheme, brought about considering the need for a more comprehensive scheme of 'no-fault' liability for reasons of the ever-increasing instances of motor vehicle accidents and the difficulty in proving rash and negligent driving," the bench said.(With TOI inputs)
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Time of India
Insurance claims not restricted to third party in motor accidents: SC
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court held that motor vehicle insurance policy holders can claim compensation and referred the issue of claims against injury or death to the policyholder themselves in a road accident to a larger bench, saying that such cases have contradict judgements in the SC, while hearing the compensation plea of a minor girl, who lost both her parents in a car accident while her father was driving, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act could be invoked for such a claim, adding that it is a special provision which overrides not only all the provisions of the Act but also any other law in force for the time minor was provided with the compensation by the insurance company for the death of her mother but not for her father as he was himself the insured bench said: "... a claim under section 163A, as per the words employed in the provision, according to us covers every claim and is not restricted to a third party claim; without any requirement of establishing the negligence, if death or permanent disability is caused by reason of the motor accident. This would also take in the liability with respect to the death of an owner or a driver who stepped into the shoes of the owner, if the claim is made under section 163A dehors the statutory liability under section 147 or the contractual liability as reduced to writing in an insurance policy".The insurance company, however, had held that the petitioner, having succeeded to the estate of the owner of the vehicle who died in the accident cannot at the same time be the person who has the liability and is the recipient of the compensation."It would override the provisions under sections 147 & 149 along with the other provisions of the Act and the law regulating insurance as also the terms of the policy confining the claim with respect to an owner-driver to a fixed sum. This according to us is the intention of incorporating the non-obstante clause under Section 163A providing for no-fault liability claims , the compensation for which is restricted to the structured formula under the IInd Schedule. It is a beneficial piece of legislation brought in, keeping in mind the enhanced chances of an accident, resulting from the prevalence of vehicles in the overcrowded roads of today. It was a social security scheme, brought about considering the need for a more comprehensive scheme of 'no-fault' liability for reasons of the ever-increasing instances of motor vehicle accidents and the difficulty in proving rash and negligent driving," the bench said.(With TOI inputs)
