KARNATAKA LORRY MALIKARA OKKUTA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHIEF Justice karnataka Lorry Malikara Okkuta (R) and some registered owner of the Lorries have filed these petitions on 20. 12. 2002 praying to quash the Government Order dated 13. 11. 2002 and to direct the State Government to constitute an expert Committee to go into the question of controlling pollution by alternate methods of using CNG fuel or any other clean fuel, by replacement of worn out parts of engine etc.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned notification, completely banning the entry of vehicles which are aged more than 15 years from the outer ring Road even in a phased manner, would affect the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and also would not fall within the meaning of reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (6) of the Constitution. It is stated that the Government has misinterpreted the order passed by the Supreme Court in M. C. MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA W. P. No. 13029/1985, reported in (2001) (3) SCC 756), while passing the impugned notification without considering the alternative method, and therefore, the impugned notification is liable to be set aside.

(3.) IN response to the notice 27. 12. 2002, the respondents have filed statement of objections, It is stated that the impugned notification has been passed to preserve the quality of air and control air pollution and to give effect to the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, (for short the Air Act ). It is stated that the respondent Board is a statutory Board constituted under Section 4 of the Water (Pollution and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and as per Section 4 of the Air Act, the said Board shall be deemed to be a State Board for the prevention and control of air pollution. Section 17 of the Air Act provides for functions of State Board to lay down the standards for emission of air pollutants into the atmosphere. It is also stated that Section 20 of the Air Act would override the provisions the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is further stated that the vehicular population of the State is 40 lakhs and about 40% of the total vehicular population is concentrated in and around Bangalore City and on account of the increase in vehicles, the Ambient Air Quality in Bangalore is deteriorating and becoming a health hazard to the Bangalore. The respondent-Board has taken note of results of the Air Quality for the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, which indicated that there is a rapid deterioration of Air Quality in Bangalore City, and therefore, the impugned notification directing the Transport Commissioner to take all necessary steps to ban entry to commercial/transport vehicles of age of 15 years or more into Bangalore City from the Outer Ring Road limits of Bangalore and to phase out the commercial/transport vehicles more than 15 years old, as indicated in the schedule, cannot be interfered with. It is also stated that the question of misinterpreting the decision in M. C. Mehtas case (supra), while issuing the impugned notification does not arise.