M C MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Directions (F) and (G) of our order dated 28-7-1998 read as follows:

(2.) After noticing lapses and inaction on the part of the administration as well as private transport operators and with a view to mitigate the sufferings of the commuter public in general and the school-going children in particular, by our order dated 26-3-2001 we relaxed the time-frame fixed in Directions (F) and (G) by extending the date to 30-9-2001. We also directed the Transport Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi to take steps to ensure that there was no misuse or abuse of the relaxation given by us on 26-3-2001 and reiterated that except for the relaxation given in that order no other commercial vehicle could ply in NCT of Delhi unless converted to single-fuel mode of CNG w.e.f. 1-4-2001. During this period we have taken up the case on various dates for directions and for assessment of extent of compliance with our orders. Contradictory affidavits giving contradictory figures and statistics have been filed from time to time by Indraprastha Gas Limited particularly. But, at this point of time we are not taking any note of those contradictions because we are assured by learned counsel appearing for Indraprastha Gas Limited, Union of India and the Government of NCT of Delhi that they will each file a comprehensive affidavit signed by a competent officer dealing with different aspects relating to availability, demand, supply and allocation of CNG to Delhi as contained in our earlier orders.

(3.) Learned amicus has filed IA No. 143 of 2001. He submitted that though some steps have been taken in furtherance of the desire of this Court to control vehicular pollution, much still remains to be done. Learned amicus has referred to certain drawbacks pointed out by the Bhure Lal Committee on the standards relating to CNG etc. He has also pointed out various recommendations made by the Bhure Lal Committee dealing with conversions of new buses or for retrofitment i.e. the change of diesel engine with a CNG engine. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for different parties that some responses have been filed before the Bhure Lal Committee to its report and that others would file responses to the report of that Committee in this Court as well as make representations to the Bhure Lal Committee for its reconsideration of the drawbacks pointed out by it.