REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6392            OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.6133 of 2008]

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. .. Appellant

Versus

Sunil Bansal & Others .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari,   J.   

1. Leave granted.

2. The  appellant  Bharat  Petroleum  Corporation  

Limited has filed this appeal against the judgment of the  

High Court of Delhi passed in writ petition No.5532 of  

2007  dated 29th October, 2007.

3. It is imperative to evaluate the historical perspective  

in  order  to  properly  appreciate  main  issue  involved  in  

this  case.   The  notification  no.GSR 686 (E)  dated 20th  

October,  2004  is  in  issue  by  which  sub-rule  (14)  was  

inserted in Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,  

1989.   This  sub-rule  prescribed  the  mass  emission  

standards  (Bharat  Stage-III  which  is  popularly  called  

Euro-III)) for four wheeled vehicles.  This notification was  

based on the judgment of this court in  M.C. Mehta  v.  

Union of India & Others (1998) 6 SCC 63.  The relevant  

portion of the notification dated 20th October, 2004 reads  

as under:-

“(1) These  rules  may  be  called  the  Central  Motor  Vehicles  (Fourth  Amendment)  Rules,  2004.

(2) They shall come into force-

(a) in  the  National  Capital  Region  and  the  cities  of  Mumbai,  Kolkata,  Chennai,  Bangalore,  Hyderabad  including  Secunderabad, Ahmedabad, Pune, Surat,  Kanpur  and  Agra  in  respect  of  four  wheeled  vehicles  manufactured  on  and  from 1st April, 2005 except in respect of  four wheeled transport vehicles plying on  Inter-State Permits or National Permits or  

2

All  India  Tourist  Permits  within  the  jurisdiction of these cities; and

(b) In other areas of the country, from such  date  as  may  be  notified  by  the  Central  Government.

Explanation.-  In  this  sub-rule  “National  Capital Region” shall have the same meaning  as assigned to it in clause (f) of section 2 of the  National  Capital  Region  Planning  Board  Act,  1985 (2 of 1985).”

 4. According  to  the  appellant,  the  notification  dated  

20.10.2004  makes  it  abundantly  clear  that  the  four-

wheeled  transport  vehicles  manufactured  on  and  from  

1.4.2005,  except  in  respect  of  four  wheeled  vehicles  

plying on Inter-State Permits or on the National Permits  

or All India Tourist Permits within the jurisdiction of the  

National Capital Region and certain other selected cities,  

would be permitted to ply only if they have Bharat Stage-  

III certificate.  In other words, it became mandatory for  

all the vehicles manufactured after 31.3.2005 to obtain  

Bharat Stage-III certificate.    

3

5. In  M.C.  Mehta  (supra),  this  court  realizing  the  

urgency and importance of protection and improvement  

of the environment directed the authorities to take urgent  

steps to tackle the acute problem of vehicular pollution in  

Delhi.   The  court  was distressed  at  the  apathy  of  the  

State Administration when according to the white Paper  

published  by  the  Government  of  India,  the  vehicular  

pollution  contributed  70%  of  the  air  pollution  as  

compared to 20% in 1970.   In the said white paper, a  

deadline  of  1.4.1998  had  been  proposed  for  

implementation of major actions.  No concrete steps were  

taken.  It may be pertinent to mention that the authority  

headed by Shri Bhure Lal proposed certain measures for  

immediate improvement of  air  quality  and had given a  

time-frame but those important recommendations of the  

Committee  were  not  implemented.   The  Bhure  Lal  

Committee also proposed the following measures within  

the time-frame in its action-take report filed in this court:  

                                                                     Time Frame

4

A Augmentation  of  public  transport  (stage  carriage)  to 10,000 buses.

1-4-2001

B Elimination  of  leaded  petrol  from the NCT Delhi  as  proposed  by  the  Authority and agreed to by  the  Ministry  of  Petroleum  & Natural Gas.

1-9-1998

C Supply  of  only  premix  petrol  in  all  petrol-filling  stations  to  two-stroke  engine vehicles.

31-12-1998

D Replacement  of  all  pre- 1990 autos and taxis with  new  vehicles  on  clean  fuels.

31-3-2000

E Financial  incentives  for  replacement  of  all  post- 1990 autos and taxis with  new  vehicles  on  clean  fuels.

31-3-2001

F No 8-year-old buses to ply  except  on  CNG  or  other  clean fuels.

1-4-2000

G Entire city bus fleet (DTC &  private)  to  be  steadily  converted  to  single-fuel  mode on CNG.

31-3-2001

5

H New  ISBTs  to  be  built  at  entry  points  in  North  and  South-West  to  avoid  pollution  due  to  entry  of  inter-State buses.

31-3-2000

I GAIL  to  expedite  and  expand from 9 to 80 CNG  supply outlets.

31-3-2000

J Two  independent  fuel- testing  labs  to  be  established.

1-6-1999

K Automated  inspection  and  maintenance facilities to be  set  up  for  commercial  vehicles in the first phase.

Immediate

L Comprehensive  I/M  programme  to  be  started  by  the  Transport  Department  and  private  sector.

31-3-2000

M CPCB/DPCC to set up new  stations  and  strengthen  existing  air-quality  monitoring  stations  for  critical pollutants.

1-4-2000

6. This  court  approved  the  directions  given  and  the  

time-frame fixed by Shri Bhure Lal Committee. The court  

directed that the committee’s  recommendation shall  be  

strictly adhered to by all the authorities who shall also  

6

take effective and adequate steps to tackle the problem of  

vehicular pollution.

7. Pursuant to the directions of this court, the Central  

Government issued various notifications in this regard.  

On  1.6.1999,  the  Central  Government  issued  a  

notification  introducing  Euro-I/Bharat  Stage-I  (BS-I)  

emission  norms,  pursuant  to  which  vehicles  

manufactured  after  1.6.1999  had  to  comply  with  BS-I  

norms.   The Central  Government  on 31.1.2000 issued  

another  notification  introducing  Euro-II/BS-II  emission  

norms,  pursuant  to  which vehicles  manufactured after  

1.3.2000 had to comply with BS-II norms.   

8. The  clear  interpretation  of  the  notification  dated  

20.10.2004  was  that  the  vehicles  manufactured  after  

1.4.2005  and  complying  with  BS-III  norms  and  the  

vehicles manufactured prior to 1.4.2005 complying with  

BS-I  and BS-II norms but not more than 15 years old  

could ply within the National Capital Region.  In the said  

notification, an exception has been provide in respect of  

four  wheeled  transport  vehicles  holding  Inter-State  

7

Permits or National Permits or All India Tourist Permits  

but  not  complying  with  BS-III  norms  even  though  

manufactured  on  or  after  1.4.2005,  which  exception  

would  apply  only  if  such  vehicles  were  plying  on  the  

Inter-State Routes beyond the National Capital Region. In  

other  words,  such  vehicles  could  not  ply  within  the  

National Capital Region and other cities mentioned in the  

notification.

9. The  appellant  Bharat  Petroleum  Corporation  

Limited,   in  view  of  the  legal  position,  on  30.3.2007,  

issued  notice  inviting  tenders  for  transportation  of  

Liquefied  Petroleum  Gas  (LPG)  Cylinders  within  the  

National Capital Region from its bottling plant at Piyala  

in Bahadurgarh to its Badarpur Depot and therefrom to  

the  godowns  of  its  LPG  distributors  within  Delhi.  

Clauses 9.3 (a) and 9.3(b) of the special terms of contract  

of the Notice inviting tenders prescribed that the trucks  

offered  for  Delhi  should  comply  with  BS-III  emission  

norms if manufactured on or after 1.4.2005 and the age  

of the truck should not be more than 12 years from the  

8

month of floating of the Notice inviting tenders as would  

appear  from  the  “Registration  Certificate  Book”  of  the  

truck.   

10. It may be pertinent to mention that respondent no.1  

filed a writ petition No.2882 of 2007 in the High Court of  

Delhi challenging the eligibility criteria of the trucks to be  

offered  by  the  bidders.   The  Delhi  High  Court  on  

10.5.2007 dismissed the said writ petition holding  inter  

alia that respondent no.1 had not been able to make out  

a case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.  

It could not be said that the tender conditions as framed  

by the appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited  

are violative of the norms and notifications issued under  

the Central Motor Vehicles Rules or the directions of the  

Supreme Court.  The decision to permit vehicles which  

are less than 15 years old, even if they do not conform to  

BS-II  norms  subject  to  the  condition  that  no  fresh  

registration of vehicles not conforming to Bharat Stage-II  

norms  would  be  granted  after  24.10.2001  and  the  

vehicles registered after 1.4.2005 would conform to BS-III  

9

norms  is  intended  to  phase  out  old  vehicles  in  a  

progressive  manner  while  addressing  the  concern  of  

adhering  to  the  emission  norms  to  control  vehicular  

pollution.

11. Respondent  no.1  on  27.7.2007  filed  another  writ  

petition no.5532 of 2007 praying inter alia  for directions  

to the appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to  

call  and  include  the  companies/firms  owned  by  

respondent  no.1 and his brothers  to participate  in the  

price  bids;  for  directions  to  the  appellant  Bharat  

Petroleum  Corporation  Limited  not  to  exclude  the  

companies/firms  owned  by  respondent  no.1  and  his  

brothers from the price  bids on the wrong assumption  

and interpretation of clause 9.3(b) of the standard terms  

& conditions of the notice inviting tenders.

12. The  Central  Government  on  20.1.2009  issued  a  

notification  making  the  Central  Motor  Vehicles  (First  

Amendment) Rules, 2009 for amendment of the Central  

Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.  In the Amendment Rules of  

2009, a proviso was added to sub-rule (7) of Rule 90 of  

10

the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.  The said proviso  

provides  that  where  ‘such’  vehicle  is  registered  in  the  

National Capital Region, it shall not pick-up or set down  

goods between two points situated in the National Capital  

Region  unless  it   conforms  to  the  mass  emission  

standards (BS-III) specified in sub-rule (14) of Rule 115.

13. According  to  the  interpretation  of  the  notification  

dated 20.10.2004, the Delhi High Court found that “it is  

clear  that  a  vehicle  compliant  with  Bharat  Stage-III  

norms possessing a National or Inter-State Permit may  

ply in the National Capital Region or Delhi, more so when  

vehicles older and less efficient and manufactured prior  

to that date are permitted to ply on the Delhi roads.”  The  

court further held that the “interpretation” sought to be  

given  by  respondent  no.1  to  the  relevant  Rules  would  

also lead to absurd results, if implemented.  The result  

would be that while respondent no.1 would entertain the  

bids  in  respect  of  goods  carriage  which  are  not  even  

Bharat  Stage-I  compliant  or  are  Bharat  Stage-I  and II  

compliant  and  are  manufactured  before  1.4.2005,  it  

11

would  not  entertain  bids  in  respect  of  goods  carriage  

which  are  relatively  new  and  are  manufactured  after  

1.4.2005 and are also Euro-II/Bharat Stage-II compliant

14. According  to  the  appellant,  the  High  Court  has  

misconstrued  and  misread  the  notification  dated  

20.10.2004 which was made expressly for the purpose of  

controlling pollution within the National Capital  Region  

in stages.  The fact of older vehicles manufactured prior  

to 1.4.2005 being permitted to ply does not militate or  

discriminate  against  the  prohibition  of  plying  vehicles  

manufactured  after  1.4.2005  which  were  not  Bharat  

Stage-III complaint, because they fell in different classes.  

The classification was necessitated on account of the fact  

that  all  vehicles  could  not  have  been  prohibited  from  

plying  in  one  stroke  as  that  would  have  created  total  

chaos in the National Capital Region.

15. The appellant also submitted that the policy behind  

the notification was that in future, older vehicles would  

be phased out on completion of 12 years from their date  

of manufacture automatically and newer vehicles would  

12

necessarily have to comply with Bharat Stage-III norms  

so that gradually the emission norms would improve and  

in 12 years all vehicles would be at least Bharat Stage-III  

compliant.  The appellant submitted that the notification  

dated  20.1.2009  issued  by  the  Central  Government  

adding the following proviso  to  sub-rule 7  of Rule 90  

the Central Motor Vehicles Rules :

“Provided that where such vehicle is registered  in the National Capital Region, it shall not pick  up  or  set  down  goods  between  two  points  situated in the National Capital Region unless  it  conforms  to  the  mass  emission  standards  (Bharat Stage-III) specified in sub-rule (14) of  rule 115.”   

16. According  to  the  appellant,  the  clarificatory  

amendment made it abundantly clear that even vehicles  

possessing  a  national  permit,  but  manufactured  after  

1.4.2005 cannot ply within the National Capital Region  

unless they are Bharat Stage-III compliant.  According to  

the appellant, this classification subserves the object of  

the notification, namely, the gradual improvement of the  

environment in the National Capital Region by providing  

for  a  gradual  induction  of  Bharat  Stage-III  emission  

13

norms compliant vehicles and gradual phasing out of the  

old vehicles simultaneously.  Therefore, there is a clear  

nexus  of  the  classification  with  the  object  of  the  

legislation.   

17. The appellant has placed reliance on the judgment  

of this court in  Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia &  

Others etc.  v.  Union of India & Others  (1969) 2 SCC  

166 para 26 wherein the court held thus:

“26…….When a law is challenged as violative  of Article 14 of the Constitution it is necessary  in  the  first  place  to  ascertain  the  policy  underlying the statute and the object intended  to  be  achieved by  it.  Having  ascertained  the  policy and object of the Act the Court has to  apply a dual test in examining its validity (1)  whether the classification is rational and based  upon  an  intelligible  differentia  which  distinguishes  persons  or  things  that  are  grouped together from others that are left out  of  the  group  and  (2)  whether  the  basis  of  differentiation  has  any  rational  nexus  or  relation with its avowed policy and object….”  

18.  The appellant submitted that respondent no.1 in fact  

purchased  the  vehicles  which  do  not  conform  with  

Bharat  Stage-III  norms  even  though  they  had  been  

14

manufactured  after  the  notification  dated  20.10.2004  

and sought to circumvent it by getting national permits.

19. In  other  words,  the  main  submission  of  the  

appellant has been that the entire notification is meant to  

achieve the  object  of  reducing pollution in  consonance  

with  the  directions  issued  by  this  court.   The  said  

directions  cannot  be  defeated  by  merely  obtaining  

National,  Inter-State  or  All  India  Tourist  Permits.  

According  to  the  appellant,  the  notification  makes  it  

crystal clear that the vehicles can ply in Delhi which are  

manufactured on or after 1.4.2005 complying with BS-III  

emission  norms.   According  to  the  appellant  after  the  

notification  date  20.10.2004,  there  is  no room for  any  

controversy and the High Court has totally misread and  

misconstrued  the  notification  and  consequently,  the  

judgment of the High Court is, therefore, liable to be set  

aside.

20. The  respondent  submitted  that  vide  notification  

GSR  686-(E)  dated  20th October,  2004  issued  by  the  

15

Central  Government Euro-III/Bharat  Stage-III  Emission  

norms were introduced only in few cities including the  

National  Capital  Region.   As  per  the  said  notification  

vehicles manufactured after 1.4.2005 had to comply with  

emission norms of  Euro-III/B.S.-III.   An exception was  

provided  to  such  notification  according  to  which  the  

vehicles  getting  a  registration  under  the  Inter-State  

Permits or National Permits or All India Tourist Permits  

within  the  National  Capital  Region  and  certain  other  

selected cities   were  exempted  from  the  compliance  of  

Bharat Stage-III emission norms and they were allowed  

to be governed by Bharat Stage-II emission norms.  This  

was done for reason, the petroleum companies could not  

provide  fuel  required  for  the  Euro-III  vehicle  all  over  

India,  as  such  national  permit  vehicles  had  to  travel  

through  many  cities  where  such  notification  was  not  

applicable.  Therefore, such exemption was given only to  

the vehicles which were moving/plying outside the cities  

where the present notification was not applicable.  

16

21. According to the respondents, the combined reading  

of the aforesaid notifications and the judgment, it can be  

said  that  the  vehicles  even  if  they  do  not  conform to  

Euro-I/Bharat Stage-I emissions norms if manufactured  

prior to 1.6.1999 and within 15 years can ply as per their  

permits.  The decision to allow such vehicles which are  

less than 15 years old, even if they do not conform to any  

of  the  emissions  norms,  is  intended  to  phase  out  old  

vehicles  in  progressive  manner  while  addressing  the  

concern  of  adhering  to  emission  norms  to  control  

vehicular pollution by not allowing any fresh registration  

of vehicles which are not conforming to emissions norms  

applicable according to their manufacturing date.

22. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at  

length  and  carefully  perused  the  impugned  judgment,  

provisions of the Act, relevant notifications and the Motor  

Vehicles Rules.   

23. The  entire  controversy  has  to  be  properly  

comprehended in proper perspective.   The notifications  

issued  by  the  Central  Government  were  issued  in  

17

pursuant to the directions of  this  court to achieve the  

object  of  reducing  pollution  in  the  National  Capital  

Region.  As per the clear interpretation of the notification  

in issue, only those vehicles will ply in National Capital  

Region which were  manufactured on or  after  1.4.2005  

and  are  complying  with  BS-III  norms.   The  vehicles  

manufactured prior to 1.4.2005 and complying with BS-I  

and BS-II norms but are not more than 15 years old can  

also ply.  This notification was issued to reduce vehicular  

pollution  in  a  phased  manner.   By  one  stroke,  the  

legislature could not have prohibited all vehicles plying in  

the  city  which  did  not  have  BS-III  compliant  as  that  

would  have  created  total  chaos,  therefore,  it  was  

introduced in a phased manner as has been done in the  

impugned notification.   

24. The  High  Court  by  its  impugned  judgment  dated  

29.10.2007  has  held  that  respondent  no.1  herein  is  

entitled to participate in the tender process initiated by  

the  appellant    herein,   offering   four  wheeled  vehicles  

manufactured  on  or  after  1.4.2005  which are Euro-II/  

18

Bharat Stage-II  compliant  and having national permits/  

Inter-state permits.

25. However,  a  perusal  of  the  notification in question  

i.e. GSR 686 (E) dated 20.10.2004 which was issued for  

the purpose of controlling pollution within the National  

Capital Region in phased manner,  makes it quite clear  

that the vehicles manufactured prior to 1.4.2005 being  

permitted to ply does not anyway militate or discriminate  

against the prohibition of plying vehicles manufactured  

after 1.4.2005 which were not Bharat Stage-III compliant  

as they clearly fell in different classes. Further, the other  

notification GSR 37(E) dated 20.1.2009 which inter-alia  

inserts proviso to sub-rule (7)  in Rule 90 clarifies that  

where such vehicle is registered in the National Capital  

Region, it shall not pick up or set down goods between  

two points situated in the National Capital Region unless  

it  conforms  to  the  mass  emission  standards  (Bharat  

Stage-III).

26. The aforesaid  classification  is  essential  in  view of  

the fact that all vehicles could not have been prohibited  

19

from plying on road in one stroke.  Therefore,  there is a  

clear nexus of the classification with the objects sought  

to be achieved by the legislation.  The rationale behind  

the  aforesaid  notification  is  to  phase  out  the  older  

vehicles automatically in due course and newer vehicles  

would necessarily have to comply with Bharat Stage-III  

norms in order to gradually increase the emission norms  

thereby curbing air pollution as per the directions issued  

by this Court in M.C. Mehta’s  case (supra).  Clearly, the  

aforesaid  classification  in  the  notification  intends  to  

gradually  improve  the  environment  by  providing  a  

mechanism for a gradual induction of Bharat-III emission  

norms. In view of the same, if we accept the contention of  

the respondent the same would amount to negation of  

the direction of this Court in M.C. Mehta’s case (supra)  

and would  also  frustrate  the  effect  of  the  notifications  

dated  20.10.2004  and  20.1.2009.   Further,  in  the  

absence of any challenge to the validity of the proviso to  

sub-rule  (7)  of  Rule  90  inserted  by  Notification  dated  

20.1.2009, the said provision has to be held valid and  

20

must be given full effect.  It is to be noted that the view  

we  have  taken here  is  the  only  possible  and intended  

view  which  can  be  inferred  from  a  reading  of  the  

amended provisions which is of clarificatory nature.

27. In our considered view, the High Court has misread  

and  misconstrued  the  notification.   Consequently,  the  

appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High  

Court is set aside.

28. In  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  

parties are directed to bear their own costs.        

…….…….……………………..J.                                          (Dalveer Bhandari)

………….……………………..J. (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)

New Delhi, September 18, 2009.

21