Petitioners are aggrieved by the provision brought in under the Central Motor Vehicle Rule providing for fitment of Anti-lock Braking System in vehicles carrying hazardous goods and Liquified Petroleum Gas.
2. This Court does not find any constitutional infirmity so far as the provisions are concerned since the Central Government has the power and it is only intended in the interest of public safety. The petitioners contention is that the petitioners had been carrying on operations in the subject vehicles, which are Heavy Goods Carriage (HGV) Vehicles, which were registered prior to the amendment of sub-rule (b) of Rule 96 of the C.M.V. Rules. That cannot, however, detract from the fact that when the provision of fitment of Anti-lock Braking System comes into effect, then
W.P.(C) Nos. 8496, 32155 & 3545/2010
-2-
necessarily all the vehicles carrying such hazardous goods of N2 and N3 category, have to comply with the said fitment. The M.V. Act, 1988 under section 110 confers power on Central Government to make rules regulating the maintenance of motor vehicles and trailers; specifically by clause (c) of sub-section (1), in relation to 'brakes and turning gears'
3. It is to be noticed that the Interim Order passed on 29.11.2010 in WPC 35485/2010 directed renewal of the Certificate of fitness only after the petitioner gives an undertaking before the Registering Authority that the petitioner shall not transport any hazardous goods in the vehicle. Despite, there being no such condition in WPC 8496/2010, the same would have to be complied with and any further fitness would have to be as per the rules upheld as above.
W.P.(C) Nos. 8496, 32155 & 3545/2010
-3-
Writ Petitions are hence dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. To Judge jjj