Motor Vehicle Rules Permits Restriction On Speed/Area Of Operation Only; ARTO’s Orders Banning Registration Of New E-Rickshaws Is Without Legal Sanction: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court ruled that orders of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Agra regarding the banning of registration of new e-rickshaws were without legal sanction.
The Court observed that U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 sanctions restriction on speed and or roads and area of operation only.
The bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Jayant Banerji perused Rule 178 of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 and observed, “apart from the restriction on speed and or roads and area of operation, no other restriction has the sanction of law. Therefore, the impugned orders insofar as they ban registration of new e-rickshaws etc is without legal sanction.”
Brief Facts-
The petitioner, Agra e- Vahan Vyapar is a registered Association of e-Vehicles Dealers in Agra. All other petitioners are dealers in e-Rickshaw and e-Auto Rickshaw. By the orders of ARTO, Agra registration of e-Rickshaw and e-auto has been banned in Mathura and Agra, respectively, in purported exercise of powers under Rule 178 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998. The order states that the restriction is being imposed on account of the mushrooming number of e- both in Agra and Mathura leading to incessant traffic jams.
The Court observed, “…the restrictions contemplated by Rule 178 are with regard to the speed or with regard to restricting or prohibiting use of motor vehicles, generally or any particular class or classes in any area or any road. This provision does not contemplate or empowers the respondents to ban registration of new vehicles. The impugned restriction is therefore, beyond the scope of Rule 178 and hence, unsustainable.”
The Court stated that in case the situation gets out of hand, nothing prevents the legislature or the rule-making authority from bringing about suitable enactments/amendments in the existing statute or the rules framed therein to achieve the desired objectives which is also the mandate of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
According to the Court, the situation, howsoever bad, cannot empower the authorities to exercise power or jurisdiction that they do not possess under the existing law or the rules.
“It has also cited lacunae and omissions in legislation that is hampering regulation of the e-rickshaws and check on their drivers,” Court added.
Finally, the Court allowed the petitions and quashed the orders passed by the ARTO, Agra.
Cause Title: Shree Vindavan Auto Sales v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:73351-DB)
Appearance:
Adv. Nirvikalp Pandey, Adv. Prarabdha Pandey, Adv. Kumar Sreshtha, Adv. Dinesh Singh Yadav, Adv. Rohit Nandan Pandey, Adv. Rahul Chaudhary, Adv. Jigar Khare and Adv. Rahul Chaudhary
