LAWS(TLNG)-2019-12-281

BADDAM SANJEEVA REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

Decided On December 06, 2019
Baddam Sanjeeva Reddy Appellant
V/S
State of Telangana Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, Sri Guntha Sri Samba Moorthy, Sri P. Radhive Reddy and M.Janardhan Rao for respective petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Transport for respondents.

(2.) In these writ petitions, petitioners purchased four wheeler truck, engine and chassis of Ashok Leyland make, except one vehicle in W.P. No. 3348 of 2019, after 1.4.2016. All these vehicles were Bharat stage III compliant. On purchase, the vehicle owners fixed drilling machines and compressors and when the vehicles were presented for registration, temporary registration was granted directing the petitioners to obtain All India permit/National permit for the purpose of registration of vehicles. The said restriction was imposed having regard to the fact that with effect from 1.4.2010 Bharat Stage IV norms came into force in Hyderabad, Secunderabad; 1.10.2014 in Nizamabad, Medak and Mahabubnagar and from 1.4.2016 in the remaining parts of the Telangana and registration of vehicles without Bharat Stage IV complaint was prohibited. However, since in certain parts of the country vehicles complying Bharat Stage III norms were allowed to ply, exception was carved out to permit registration of vehicles complying with Bharat Stage III norms, provided the vehicles obtained All India Permit/National Permit.

(3.) On 29.3.2016 the Transport Commissioner of Telangana State issued circular memo No. 1370/R/2016 bringing it to the notice of the Joint Commissioner, Secretary, Road Transport Authority and all the Deputy Transport Commissioners/Regional Transport Officers to GSR No.643 (E) Dated 19.8.2015 notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi. By the said notification, Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 were amended. Petitioners challenge the said notification in these writ petitions and contend that by referring to the said circular memo, respondents are not undertaking permanent registration of their vehicles, causing hardship and suffering to them.