The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to prevent illegal transportation of goods in passenger vehicles.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the petition was misconceived and that the petitioner, one Nandlal Ramratan Kabra, had failed to specify the competent authority responsible for ensuring compliance with the relevant rules.
The petitioner had sought directions to the respondents, including the Union of India, the State of Gujarat, and various other authorities, to take immediate steps to prevent illegal transportation of goods on passenger vehicles.
The petitioner had also sought directions to conduct regular surprise checks and inspections on buses, particularly at border areas and highways, to ensure compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act and rules framed thereunder.
However, the court observed that the petitioner had failed to specify the competent authority responsible for ensuring compliance with the relevant rules.
The court also noted that the petitioner had joined multiple respondents, including the Union of India, the State of Gujarat, and various other authorities, making it unclear who was responsible for ensuring compliance with the rules.
The court held that there was no need for issuance of any direction to frame a policy for compliance of the rules, as the requirements for running tourist vehicles were already prescribed in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
The court dismissed the PIL, holding that it was misconceived, but granted liberty to the petitioner to agitate his grievance before the competent authority.
The post appeared first on .
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the petition was misconceived and that the petitioner, one Nandlal Ramratan Kabra, had failed to specify the competent authority responsible for ensuring compliance with the relevant rules.
The petitioner had sought directions to the respondents, including the Union of India, the State of Gujarat, and various other authorities, to take immediate steps to prevent illegal transportation of goods on passenger vehicles.
The petitioner had also sought directions to conduct regular surprise checks and inspections on buses, particularly at border areas and highways, to ensure compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act and rules framed thereunder.
However, the court observed that the petitioner had failed to specify the competent authority responsible for ensuring compliance with the relevant rules.
The court also noted that the petitioner had joined multiple respondents, including the Union of India, the State of Gujarat, and various other authorities, making it unclear who was responsible for ensuring compliance with the rules.
The court held that there was no need for issuance of any direction to frame a policy for compliance of the rules, as the requirements for running tourist vehicles were already prescribed in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
The court dismissed the PIL, holding that it was misconceived, but granted liberty to the petitioner to agitate his grievance before the competent authority.
The post appeared first on .