PAPER CLIPPING Vs. S H O KARIMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition raises a very important point for consideration. It is a taken up case on the bais of paper reports dated 7-9-1999 containing a mutilated car on account of the blast of the liquid petroleum gas cylender placed therein used as a fuel in place of petrol. If it is a solitary incident of a blast, it may be called as an accident. But, it is not so. At some other places, similar incidents have been reported. Apart from the safety point which has to be decided on factual side, the prime point is the legality or otherwise in the use of the gas clyinder as a fuel to run the automobile vehicles.

(2.) Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government and Mr. Sarvabhauma Rao, learned counsel appearting for the 9th respondent submit that Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not applicable for the conversion of the liquid petroleum gas into a fuel source. According to the learned counsel, while for substitution of other fuel sources in place of petrol diesel application for conversion and permission for the same is necessary by the authority, for the conversion of liquid petroleum gas as a fuel source in place of petrol diesel, no such necessity is contemplated by Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Additional Advocate General has appeared and assisted the Court. He submits that second proviso to Section 52(1) of the Act enables the conversion of sources of fuel from petrol diesel with battery, compressed natural gas solar power or any other fuel source of energy and that liquid petroleum gas cannot be used as a source of fuel and no permission for conversion can be granted in that regard. This argument of the learned Advocate-General is diametrically opposite to that of the learned Central Government Standing Counsel and Mr. Sarvabhouma Rao, the learned counsel for the 9th respondent. Mr. M.R.K. Choudhary, the learned senior counsel hwo aslo intervened in the proceedings, supported the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General.