Holding

Four‑wheeled transport vehicles manufactured on or after 1 April 2005 may ply in the NCR only if they conform to BS‑III emission standards; older vehicles (pre‑1 April 2005) up to 15 years old may ply, but the tender’s BS‑III requirement is valid.

Summary

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) issued a tender for transporting LPG cylinders within the National Capital Region (NCR) and stipulated that trucks must comply with Bharat Stage‑III (BS‑III) emission norms if manufactured on or after 1 April 2005 and not be older than 12 years. Sunil Bansal (Respondent No.1) challenged this eligibility criterion, arguing that vehicles holding national or inter‑state permits could be allowed even if they were only BS‑II compliant. The Delhi High Court held that the respondent could participate with such vehicles, interpreting the Central Government notification GSR 686(E) of 20 Oct 2004 as permitting them. BPCL appealed, contending that the notification, together with the 2009 amendment GSR 37(E), required all four‑wheeled transport vehicles plying within the NCR to be BS‑III compliant, irrespective of permits, and that the High Court misread the provisions. The Supreme Court examined the purpose of the notifications – a phased reduction of vehicular pollution – and affirmed that vehicles manufactured on/after 1 April 2005 must meet BS‑III standards, while older vehicles (pre‑1 April 2005) up to 15 years old may ply with BS‑I/II. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgment and upheld BPCL’s tender criteria. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The correct interpretation of Central Government notification GSR 686(E) (2004) and its 2009 amendment GSR 37(E) regarding emission standards for four‑wheeled transport vehicles in the NCR.
Whether vehicles holding national, inter‑state or All‑India tourist permits but not BS‑III compliant may be permitted to ply within the NCR for the purpose of the tender.
Whether the classification of vehicles based on manufacture date and emission norms is a valid exercise of legislative power under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.

Legislation cited

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989s. Rule 115, s. Rule 90
National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985s. Section 2

Subjects

Emission standardsBharat Stage IIICentral Motor Vehicles RulesEnvironmental lawTender eligibilityNational Capital RegionVehicle classificationPollution control

Judgment

[2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 711

-'f BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. A
v.
SUNIL BANSAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeai No. 6392 of 2009)

SEPTEMBER 18, 2009
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.)

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - r 115(14) (as
inserted by notification no.GSR 686 (E) dated 20.10.2004) ... c
Mass emission standard - BS-Ill for four wheeled vehicles -
Four wheeled vehicles manufactured on and from 1.4.2005
permitted to ply in NCR and certain selected cities only if they
have BS-Ill certificate - Vehicles plying on Inter-State Permits
-~
or on National Permits or All India Tourist Permits exempted D
- Petitioner inviting tenders for transportation of LPG
Cylinders within NCR from Bahadurgarh to Badarpur Depot
- Trucks to comply with BS-Ill emission norms if manufactured
on or after 1.4.2005 and not to be more than 12 years old.:...
Challenge to, by one of the intending bidders - High Court E
holding that bidder entitled to participate in the tender processI
4( - On appeal, held: High Court misread the notification which
was issued to reduce vehicular pollution in a phased manner
"(
- Legislature could not have prohibited all vehicles plying il'.l
- the city whiQh did not have BS-Ill compliant as that would F
create total chaos - Vehicles manufactured prior to 1.4.2005
being permitted to ply does not discriminate against the
prohibition of plying vehicles manufactured after 1.4.2005
which were not BS-Ill complaint as they fell in different classes

-
,
;l
- There is a clear nexus of classification with the objects
sought to be achieved - Proviso to r. 90(7) clarifies that
vehicle registered in NCR, shall pick up or set down good~
between two points situated in NCR only when it conforms to
G

BS-Ill compliant - Environment law.
711 H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 {ADDL.) S.C.R.

A The Central Government issued notification no.GSR
686 (E) dated 20.10.2004 whereby sub-rule (14) was
inserted in rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989. It prescribed mass emission standards-Bharat
Stage-Ill called Euro-Ill for four wheeled vehicles. As per
B the notification the four-wheeled transport vehicles
manufa.ctured 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
c other selected cities, would be permitted to ply only if they
have Bharat Stagealll certificate. Appellant invited tenders
for transportation of LPG Cylinders within the National
Capital Region from Bahadurgarh to its Badarpur Depot
and therefrom to LPG distributors within Delhi. The
eligibility criteria was that the trucks should comply with
0
BS-111 emission norms if manufactured on or after 1.4.2005
and truck should not be more· than 12 years from the
month of floating of· the Notice inviting tenders.
Respondent no.1 challenged the eligibility criteria. High
Court dismissed the writ petition. Respondent no.1 filed
E another writ petition praying for directions to the
appellant to call and include his companies to participate
in the price bids. High Court allowed the same. Hence the
present appeal.

F Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The notifications by the Central
Government were issued in pursuance to the directions
of this Court to achieve the object of reducing pollution.
G in the National Capital Region. As per the clear
interpretation of the notification, only those vehicles will
ply in National Capital Region which were manufactured
on or after 1.4.2005 and are complying with BS-Ill norms.
The vehicles manufactured prior to 1.4.2005 and
H
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 713
SUNIL BANSAL & ORS.
. --.+ complying with BS-I and BS-11 norms but are not more A
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-Ill
compliant as that would have created total chaos, B
therefore, it was introduced in a phased manner as has
been done in the impugned notification. (Para 23] (724-
F-H; 725-A-B]

1.2. The High Court held that respondent no.1 is C
entitled to participate in the tender process initiated by
the appellant, offering four wheeled vehicles
manufactured on or after 1.4.2005 which are Euro-II/
Bharat Stage-II compliant and having national permits/
Inter-state permits. However, a perusal of the notification-
GSR 686 (E) dated 20.10.2004 which was issued for the 0
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 6
after 1.4.2005 which were not Bharat Stage-Ill 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 F
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-Ill). [Paras 24 and 25] [725-B-F]
G
1.3. The classification is essential in view of the fact
.; that all vehicles could not have been prohibited 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 said
H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) s'~c.R.

A notification is to phase out the older vehicles
automatically in due course and newer vehicles would
necessarily have to comply with Bharat Stage-Ill norms
in order to gradually increase the emission norms thereby
curbing air pollution as per the directions issued by this
B Court in *M.C. Mehta's case. The said classification in the
notification intends to gradually improve the environment
by providing a mechanism for a gradual induction of
Bharat-Ill emission norms. In view of the same, if the
submission of the respondent is accepted, the same
c would amount to negation of the direction of this Court
in M.C. Mehta's case 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 "alidity
of the proviso to sub-rule (7) of Rule 90 inserted by
Notification dated 20.1.2009, the said provision has to be
0
held valid and must be given full effect. The view taken
is the only possible and intended view which can be
inferred from a reading of the amended provisions which
is of clarificatory nature. The High Court misread and
E misconstrued the notification. Thus, the impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 26 and
27] [725-F-H; 726-A-E]

*M. C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. 1998 (6) SCC 63;
Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia and Ors. etc. v. Union of
F India and Ors. (1969) 2 SCC 166, referred to.
Case Law Reference:
1998 (6) sec 63 Referred to. Para 3
(1969) 2 sec 166 Referred to. Para 17
G
\
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. _},, """
6392 of 2009. i-
t
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.10.2007 of the High
H
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTO. v. SUNIL 715
BANSAL & ORS.

Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 5532 of A
--i- 2007.

Sudhir Chandra, Parijat Sinha, Reshmni Rea Sinha and
Debapriya Samanta for the Appellant.

Sudhir Nandrajog, P.P. Malhotra, ASG (NP), Asha G. Nair B
D.S. Mahra, K.K. Mani, Ankit Swarup, Siddharth, Subra.monium
Prasad for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
c
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. D
~
3. It is imperative to evaluate the historical perspective in
order to properly appreciate main issue involved in this ca~e.
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 E
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. This sub-rule prescribed
the mass emission standards (Bharat Stage-Ill which is
.. popularly called Euro-Ill)) 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
F
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.
G
(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,
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 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
All India Tourist Permits within the jurisdiction of
B 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"
c 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
0 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
E selected cities, would be permitted to ply only if they have
· Bharat Stage- Ill certificate. In other words, it became mandatory
. ~ for all the vehicles manufactured after 31.3.2005 to obtain
Bharat Stage-Ill certificate. •

5. In M.C. Mehta (supra), th'is court realizing the urgency.
F 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_
G 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
H
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. SUNIL717
BANSAL & ORS. (DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
---t by Shri Shure Lal proposed certain measures for immediate A
improvement of air quality and had given a time-frame but those
important recommendations of the Committee were not
implemented. The Shure Lal Committee also proposed the
following measures within the time-frame in its action-take
report filed in this court: B
Time Frame

-4,
A Augmentation of public transport
(stage carriage) to 10,000 buses. 1-4-2001
c
B Elimination of leaded petrol
from the NCT Delhi as
proposed by the Authority and 1-9-1998
agreed to by the Ministry of
Petroleum & Natural Gas. D

c Supply of only premix petrol in
all petrol-filling stations to two- '"31-12-1998
stroke engine vehicles.
E
D Replacement of all pre-1990
.; autos and taxis with new 31-3-2000
vehicles on clean fuels.
'f
E Financial incentives for
replacement of all post-1990 31-3-2001 F
autos and taxis with new
vehicles on clean fuels.

F No 8-year-old buses to ply
except on CNG or other 1-4-2000 G
'•
A clean fuels.

H
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 719
SUNIL BANSAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

---t to by all the authorities who shall also take effective and A
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
B
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 C
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-Ill nonns and the vehicles manufactured
~ prior to 1.4.2005 complying with BS-I and BS-II norms but not D
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
Permits or National Permits or All India Tourist Permits but not
complying with BS-Ill norms even though manufactured on or E
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. F
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 G
• i. 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-Ill emission norms if manufactured
on or after 1.4.2005 and the age of the truck should not be more H
._,
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A than 12 years from the month of floating of the Notice inviting
tenders as would appear from the "Registration Certificate -r-
Book" of the truck.

10. It may be pertinent to mention that respondent no.1 filed
B 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 ~ondi!ions-
C as framed by the appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporatiqn
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-I I norms
D subject to the condition that no fresh registration of vehicles not
conforming to Bharat Stage-II norms would be granted after '/t--
24.10.2001 and the vehicles registered after 1.4.2005 would
conform to BS-Ill norms is intended to phase out old vehicles
in a progressive manner while addressing the concern of
E 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 i
F include the companies/firms owned by respondent no.1 and his
brothers to participate in the price bids; for directions to the.Tl
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
G 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 .ll ""'
notification making the Central Motor Vehicles (First
Amendment) Rules, 2009 for amendment of the Central Motor
H
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 721
. SUNIL BANSAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
Vehicle Rules, 1989. In the Amendment Rules of 2009, a A
·~;
proviso was added to sub-rule (7) of Rule 90 of the Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The said proviso provides that
where 'such' vehicle is regi~tered 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 B
to the mass emission standards (BS-Ill) specified in sub-rule
(14) of Rule 115.

13. According to the interpretation of the notification dated
-4. 20.10.2004, the Delhi High Court found that "it is clear that a
vehicle compliant with Bharat Stage-Ill norms possessing a
c
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 D
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 would not entertain bids in E
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 F
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 G
prohibition of plying vehicles manufactured after 1.4.2005 which
r
... were not Bharat Stage-Ill 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
H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A National Capital Region.
-r-·
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 necessarily have to
B
comply with Bharat Stage-Ill norms so that gradually the
emission norms would improve and in 12 years all vehicles
would be at least Bharat Stage-Ill compliant. The appellant
submitted that the notification dated 20.1.2009 issued by the ,L
Central Government adding the following proviso to sub-rule 7
c 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
D Region unless it conforms to the mass emission standards
(Bharat Stage-Ill) specified in sub-rule (14). of rule 115."

16. According toJ_fle_appellant, the clarificatory amendment
made it abundantly clear that even vehicles possessing a
national permit, but manufactured after 1.4:2005 cannot ply
E
within the National Capital Region unless they are Bharat
Stage-Ill compliant. According to the app~llant, this classification
subserves the object of the notification, namely, the gradual .
·improvement of the environment in the National Capital Region )I'
by providing for a gradual induction of Bharat Stage-Ill emission ,
F 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 Or) the judgment of
G 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
H
...
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 723
SUNIL BANSAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

ascertain the policy underlying the statute and the object A
-~
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
B

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-
c
Ill norms even though they had been 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
D

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 E
crystal clear that the vehicles can ply in Delhi which are
manufactured on or after 1.4.2005 complying with BS-Ill
~
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 F
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 Central
Government Euro-Ill/Bharat Stage-Ill Emission norms were G
J... 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-111/B.S.-
Ill. An exception was provided to such notification according to
which the vehicles getting a registrc:it ...,, 1 under the Inter-State H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q09] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 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-Ill
emission norms and they were allowed to be governed by
Bharat Stage-II emission norms. This was done for reason, the
B petroleum companies could not provide fuel required for the ...
Euro-Ill vehicle all over India, as such national permit vehicles
had to travel through many cities where such notification was
not applicable. Therefore, s~ch exemption was given only to the
vehicles which were moving/plying outside the cities where the
c present notification was not applicable.

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
D ·. within 15 years can ply as per their permits. The decision to
allow such vehicles which aie iess than 15 years old, even if
they do not conform to any of the emissions n~:ms, is Intended
to phase out old vehicles in progressive manner while
addressing the concern of adhering to emission norms to
E 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
F 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 pursuant to the
G 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 issu~. only those vehicles will ply in National
Capital Region which were manufactured on or after 1.4.2005
and are complying with BS-Ill norms. The vehicles
H manufactured prior to 1.4.2005 and complying with BS-I and
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 725
SUNIL BANSAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
BS-II norms but are not more than 15 years old can also ply. A
--'i- 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-
Ill compliant as that would have created total chaos, therefore,
it was introduced in a phased manner as has been done in the B
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
c
1.4.2005 which are Euro-II/ 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 D
purpose of controlling pollution within the National Capital
-i
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 E
Stage-Ill compliant as they clearly fell in different classe~.
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
F

to the mass emission standards (Bharat Stage-Ill).

26. The aforesaid classification is essential in view of the
fact that all vehicles could not have been prohibited from plying G'
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-Ill norms in order to graduall~, i'lcrease the emission H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. ~

A norms thereby curbing air pollution as per the directions issued -r~
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-Ill emission norms. In view of the
B 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-
c rule (7) of Rule 90 inserted by Notification dated 20.1.2009, the
said provision has to be held valid and 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.
D )-
I

27. In our considered view, the High Court has misread
and misconstrued the notification. Cons~quently, the appeal is
allowed and the impugned ;t:dgment of the High Court is set
aside.
E
28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties
are directed to bear their own costs.
4

N.J. Appeal allowed. )'