JUDGMENT - Dr. CHANDRACHUD D.Y., J.:---In these proceedings, the Court has been moved by Associations representing the interest of transporters who seek a modification of the directives which have been issued by the Court for phasing out transport vehicles more than eight, or as the case may be fifteen years old unless converted to run on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG). 2. On 17th October, 2001, an order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of the Honble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice B.P. Singh (as the learned Judge than was) and Mr. Justice Ranjana Desai by which the Court directed phasing out of transport vehicles (i) over 15 years old and (ii) over 8 years old, unless converted to run on CNG/LPG by 1st January, 2003 and 1st January, 2004, respectively. This Court noted that the Expert Committee constituted in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court to examine, consider and recommend measures to reduce vehicular pollution in Greater Mumbai recommended that with effect from 1st January, 2001, all transport vehicles (except three wheelers and BEST Buses) over the age of 15 years shall be scrapped unless converted to clean fuel; whereas transport vehicles over 8 years of age shall similarly be scrapped unless converted to run on clean fuel by 1st January, 2002. The State Government had suggested that these dates for the two categories of vehicles should be 1st January, 2003 and 1st January, 2005. Upon hearing submissions urged before the Court inter alia on behalf of the transporters, the Division Bench of this Court fixed the time schedule mentioned above. 3. Between October 2001 and December, 2002, no action was taken by the transporters to comply with the order of this Court dated 17th October, 2001. In December 2002, the State of Maharashtra instituted proceedings in the form of a Notice of Motion for a further extension of 5 years for the phasing out or conversion of 15 year old vehicles. The Maharashtra Vahatuk Sena also filed a Notice of Motion supporting the application of the State Government. On 18th December, 2002, this Court passed an order holding that no serious effort had been made to comply with the earlier order of the Division Bench. Nonetheless time was extended until 31st March, 2003 in order to obviate any hardship to the members of the public. 4. On 18th December, 2002, this Court passed an order holding that no serious effort had been made to comply with the earlier order of the Division Bench. Nonetheless time was extended until 31st March, 2003 in order to obviate any hardship to the members of the public. 4. In March 2003, several Motions were again moved before this Court praying for an extension of time and for permission to (i) fit catalytic convertors; or (ii) upgrade to Euro I engines; or (iii) retro-fit Euro II compliant engines instead of phasing out or converting to run on CNG. The applications filed by the associations of transporters were supported by an affidavit of the State of Maharashtra which sought an extension of five years for compliance with the order of the Division Bench. In support of the applications which were moved before this Court, reliance had been placed at that stage on certain letters addressed by the vehicular manufacturers and fitters including a letter dated 27th February, 2003 from TELCO, a letter dated 28th February, 2003 from Ashok Leyland and a letter dated 12th March, 2003 from Cummins Auto Services. In essence, the aforesaid letters set out that (i) The replacement or retrofication of Euro compliant engines would have to be subject to the approval of the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) or of the Vehicle Research Development Establishment (VRDE), an institution under the control of the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence; (ii) The question of retrofitment would have to be determined on an individual inspection of the body condition and suitability/feasibility for retrofitment; and (iii) The residual life and commercial viability would have to be considered by the operators. 5. These applications which were moved before the Court were considered and disposed of by an order dated 31st March, 2003. In the order of this Court, the Division Bench observed that since the passing of the first order dated 17th October, 2001 virtually no steps were taken either by the authorities of the State or by the associations representing the transporter to implement the order of the Court. This Court recorded that until 31st December, 2002 when the first phase out deadline expired, no serious steps had been taken and it was only between January and March 2003 that certain steps had been taken to which a reference had been made by the applicants. This Court recorded that until 31st December, 2002 when the first phase out deadline expired, no serious steps had been taken and it was only between January and March 2003 that certain steps had been taken to which a reference had been made by the applicants. We expressed our disapproval of the manner in which extensions were being sought almost on the eve of the expiry of the deadline and of the manner in which, unfortunately, the authorities of the State which had been directed to implement the order had supported the transporters. This Court recorded that though a prayer made by the State in Notice of Motion No. 161 of 2002 for an extension of five years until 2008 had not been acceded to, the same prayer had been made before the Court once again by the same Officer on behalf of the State. Explaining the rationale of the order of this Court, the Division Bench held thus: "The underlying rationale of the order of this Court is clear to our mind the principle of obsolescence must apply to critically polluting vehicles and fifteen years is by all standards a reasonable period after which commercial vehicles which are used extensively, in difficult conditions, with significant wear and tear should be phased out. The only other option contemplated in the order of this Court is "unless such vehicles are converted to run on CNG/LPG." This Court held that the modification which had been sought to substitute the earlier direction by permitting installation of Euro II engines on obsolete vehicles could not be accepted. However, keeping in mind the inconvenience that may be caused to the public at large, this Court granted an extension until 31st July, 2003 on condition that every such transport operator will pay an amount of Rs. 500/- per vehicle per day from 1st April, 2003 till 31st July, 2003. Such a condition, it was noted, had been imposed by the Supreme Court in (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India)1, 2002(4) S.C.C. 356 . 6. A Special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court by the Maharashtra Rajya Motor Malak Sangh which came up for hearing before the Supreme Court on 10th April, 2003 together with other petitions filed by the transporters. 6. A Special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court by the Maharashtra Rajya Motor Malak Sangh which came up for hearing before the Supreme Court on 10th April, 2003 together with other petitions filed by the transporters. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in the following terms : "We do not find any good ground to interfere in any of these matters. Hence, the Special leave petitions stand dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioners to approach the High Court with necessary material and experts report to say that without phasing out the trucks they can satisfy the requirements of the standard in relation to pollution by replacement of new Euro II engines. In case the petitioners approach the High Court, our order of dismissal of these petitions will not stand in the way of such consideration on merits and in accordance with law." 7. After the order of the Supreme Court dated 10th April, 2003, this Court has been moved on behalf of the transporters in several Notices of Motion No. 242 of 2003 has been filed by the Maharashtra Rajya Motor Malak Sangh for extension and for permission to retro-fit Euro II engines. Chamber Summons No. 153 of 2003 has been filed by the Mumbai Konkan Tempo Malak Sangathana for a direction to test Catalytic Converters and for a stay of the order dated 31st March, 2003 in the meantime. Notice of Motion No. 313 of 2003 has been filed by the Vahan Bachav Kriti Samiti and by Brihan Mumbai Tempo Malak Sangh for permission to retrofit Euro II engines for extension of time for 15 year and 8 year old vehicles and for imposition of fine only on days when the vehicles are plied. Similar reliefs are prayed in Notice of Motion No. 314 of 2003 filed by the Bombay Bus Owners Association Bus Owners Sangh. Notice of Motion 319 of 2003 has been filed by Goregaon Tempo Transport Association for directions to Mahanagar Gas Limited to open CNG pumps, for permission to retrofit Euro I or II engines, provision of financial assistance by the State Government of India and Municipal Corporation, waiver of fine and extension of time by two years. Notice of Motion 319 of 2003 has been filed by Goregaon Tempo Transport Association for directions to Mahanagar Gas Limited to open CNG pumps, for permission to retrofit Euro I or II engines, provision of financial assistance by the State Government of India and Municipal Corporation, waiver of fine and extension of time by two years. Notice of Motion 330 of 2003 is filed by the Maharashtra Tank Loy Owners Association for permission to retrofit Euro II engines, for extension of time and for waiver of fine. 8. The order passed by the Supreme Court on 10th April, 2003 granted liberty to the petitioners before the Court to approach this Court with necessary material and an experts report for the purpose of establishing that without phasing out the trucks, they can satisfy the requirement of the standard in relation to pollution by the replacement of new Euro II engines. The petitioners were permitted to approach this Court it must be noted, with necessary material and an Experts report. The scope of these proceedings therefore, is for this Court to consider whether in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court, there is produced before this Court necessary material and Expert Report that would establish that the requirement of the standard in relation to pollution can be satisfied by the replacement of new Euro II engines without phasing out the trucks. Now at the outset, it would be necessary to note that the only report which has been relied upon as a report of an expert is by the petitioners before the Court in Notice of Motion No. 330 of 2003. Before that report is considered, it would be necessary to have regard to the material which has been produced on record by the several applicants in support of the reliefs prayed for in the Motions before this Court. 9. After the order of the Supreme Court dated 10th April, 2003, a meeting was convened on 22nd April, 2003 between the Transport Department of the State Government and transporters. The capacities of all the manufacturers to supply Euro II compliant engines were examined at that meeting. The representatives of TELCO and of Ashok Leyland Ltd. clarified that while replacement was technically possible, it would be necessary to evaluate the exact requirement of each vehicle on a case to case basis. The capacities of all the manufacturers to supply Euro II compliant engines were examined at that meeting. The representatives of TELCO and of Ashok Leyland Ltd. clarified that while replacement was technically possible, it would be necessary to evaluate the exact requirement of each vehicle on a case to case basis. The replacement of Euro II compliant engines was in other words subject to an inspection of each individual vehicle. At the first meeting neither the representatives of ARAI, nor for that matter of VRDE was present. A subsequent meeting took place on 25th April, 2003 which was convened by the Transport Commissioner. At that meeting, the Senior Deputy Director of ARAI, Pune was present and clarified that the modification of old diesel engines was not practicable and the replacement by new engines should be accompanied by an appropriate upgradation of other aggregates under the supervision of an expert. The Minutes record that the representative of ARAI "amplified the point by pointing out an incompatibility between old assemblies and new high power engines." He then clarified that the possibility of replacing diesel engines was subject to the condition that each vehicle was inspected by the manufacture or its approved service station to ascertain the suitability of other assemblies. In so far as the other products relating to pollution control equipment were concerned, the representative of ARAI clarified that the experience about such products was not commensurate with the claims made by manufacturers. The use of catalytic converters, it was stated, was a complex issue and in the absence of an assurance of performance the possibility of catalytic converters being rendered useless is very strong. At the meeting held on 25th April, 2003, a reference was also made to a letter dated 24th April, 2003 received from VRDE. In that letter, VRDE clarified the position thus : "(1) Conversion of Pre Bharat Stage I diesel engine to Bharat Stage II norms complaint diesel engine will be difficult by retrofitment. It involves major modifications in the combustion chamber, FIP Injectors etc. It may be carried out by C.E. manufacturers only. Possibility of using any latest technology retrofitment such as use of advance catalytic converter etc. to be explored and may involve further R D work. It involves major modifications in the combustion chamber, FIP Injectors etc. It may be carried out by C.E. manufacturers only. Possibility of using any latest technology retrofitment such as use of advance catalytic converter etc. to be explored and may involve further R D work. (2) Pre Bharat Stage I diesel engine can be converted to operate on CNG by retrofitment to meet Bharat Stage II norms by modifying the cylinder head, piston etc. to operate on CNG with fitment of catalytic converter and operation in closed loop mode. Such systems are already tested and approved by testing agencies for Diesel Buses now operating in NCR, Delhi, as you are already aware. Hence the same may be considered for Bombay and other places. (3) Alternatively the old Diesel Engines can be replaced by new Diesel Engines compliant to Bharat Stage II norms or new CNG Engines. (4) A testing agency will be needing normally 3 months time to test and certify an upgraded engine." 10. Neither the Minutes of the Meeting that was held on 22nd April, 2003 nor of the meeting held on 25th April, 2003 establish that the replacement of new Euro II engines on the assemblies of old trucks will satisfy the requirement of standarus in relation to pollution without the phasing out of trucks. In neither of the two meetings has the issue which was delineated in the order of the Supreme Court been squarely addressed. The impact of retrofitting new Euro II endings in existing assemblies of old trucks on the standards of pollution has not been dealt with or considered in either of the two meetings concerned by the Transport Commissioner. Even on the question as to the feasibility of the retrofitment of new Euro II engines on existing trucks more than eight, or as the case may be, fifteen year old, the Minutes are ambivalent. The representative of ARAI was candid enough to point out the incompatibility of old assemblies with new high powered engines. Hence, he stated that even the possibility of replacing a diesel engine was subject to the condition that each vehicles was inspected by the manufacturer to ascertain the suitability of other assemblies. 11. Apart from these Minutes, there are letters dated 24th April, 2003 and 6th May, 2003 of Ashok Leyland and a letter dated 9th May, 2003 of TELCO on the record. 11. Apart from these Minutes, there are letters dated 24th April, 2003 and 6th May, 2003 of Ashok Leyland and a letter dated 9th May, 2003 of TELCO on the record. Ashok Leyland states that while it manufactures Euro II compliant engines and that it is technically feasible to replace old engines with these engines the vehicles need to be inspected before it can be confirmed that Euro II compliant engines can be replaced in the place of old diesel engines. TELCO in its letter states that on commercial vehicles which are over 8 years old, old engines can be replaced with Euro II compliant diesel engines. However, in addition to the engines, the radiator and exhaust system will need to be replaced and an inter-cooler will need to be installed. This is subject to the approval of the ARAI. TELCO has stated that the retrofitment of new engines on old vehicles is subject to the body condition and suitability for retrofitment. The feasibility of such replacement will have to be determined on an individual basis after the inspection of each chassis and its aggregate. Even if it is technically feasible to replace the engines, TELCO states that commercial viability has to be assessed by the operator and the residual life of the vehicle after the replacement of the engine needs to be evaluated. Finally, what is significant is the statement of TELCO that in vehicles over 8 years old, TELCO "will not be in a position to offer warranty on these vehicles". Counsel appearing on behalf of TELCO in these proceedings has stated before the Court that even if the replacement of Euro II compliant engines is technically feasible in particular cases upon inspection and subject to body condition, TELCO is not in a position to offer any warranty in respect of the vehicles. Counsel stated that while a large order of the kind involved in the present case for the replacement of Euro II compliant engines on existing trucks will lead to a revenue inflow for TELCO the company would wish to make it clear, as a matter of fair business practice that it is impossible to give any warranty on such vehicles. 12. 12. From the position as it emerges before the Court, therefore, it is clear that even the technical feasibility of replacing new Euro II compliant engines on trucks which are more than 8 years of age is incapable of being subjected to a generalised certification. What is more important the purpose of these proceedings is the absence of any material whatsoever that would indicate that for the installation of new Euro II engines on old assemblies would lead to the satisfaction of the requirement of pollution standards. 13. They only report of an expert that has been relied upon before the Court is by the applicants in Notice of Motion No. 330 of 2003. In that Motion, the report that is submitted before the Court has been prepared by the Institute of Environmental Management of the South Indian Education Society. The report addresses the following issues: (i) Purpose of the Supreme Court/High Court orders; (ii) Whether CNG/LPG is real clean fuel; (iii) Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Retrofit programme in USA and other countries; and (iv) US Court Precedent Responsibilities of Vehicle Manufacturers, Fuel Producers, and Owners of Heavy Duty Vehicles. According to the report, Heavy Duty vehicles owners can meet Euro II standards by a combination of Euro II compliant engines operated on Euro II compliant diesel. Engine retrofitment is a harsher option, the softer being retrofitment of existing engines with relevant pollution control devices "particulate filters, and three way catalytic converters". A substantial part of the SIES report is devoted to the question as to whether CNG/LPG constitutes clean fuel. Relying upon the report of the Mashelkar Committee, the SIES report questions the credentials of CNG/LPG. 14. In our view, the exercise which has been carried out in the SIES report of questioning the validity of the use of CNG/LPG as non-polluting fuel is misconceived and is directly contrary to the binding judgment of the Supreme Court. The question as to whether CNG is an acceptable fuel for reducing vehicular pollution has been elaborately considered in a judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2002(4) S.C.C. 356 . The question as to whether CNG is an acceptable fuel for reducing vehicular pollution has been elaborately considered in a judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2002(4) S.C.C. 356 . The Supreme Court made the following observations on the report of the Mashelkar Committee which was set up by the Union of India to prepare a report on vehicular pollution: "The composition of the Mashelkar Committee was such that none of its members was either a doctor, or an expert in public health. The said Committee submitted its report, which does not show any serious concern in protecting the health of the people. The Committee recommended that emission norms should be laid down, and that the choice of the fuel should be left to the user. The Committee seemed to have overlooked the fact that such norms had been in place for a long time with hardly any compliance thereof. For instance, the emission norms with regard to the quality of air and water have been statutorily provided for but despite this, prior to 1996. Delhi was the third most polluted city in the world. It will not be out of place to mention that there are various emission and other norms and regulations which are in place, but are invariably breached. The existence of building regulations have not been able to control rampant unauthorised and illegal construction, just as the existence of norms relating to effluents have not prevented pollution. Yamuna is no more a holy river it has been relegated to a sewage drain. Norms regarding quality of water and the various orders passed by this Court in another case have not been successful in adding any oxygen in the water, the BOD level being zero. Therefore, it is naive of the Mashelkar Committee to expect that merely laying down fresh omission norms will be effective or sufficient to check or control vehicular pollution." The Supreme Court noted that norms of emission and norms for fuel have existed for over two decades despite which the state of the environment is dismal. The emission norms stipulated by the Government had failed to check air pollution which has grown to dangerous levels across the country. The emission norms stipulated by the Government had failed to check air pollution which has grown to dangerous levels across the country. The Supreme Court held that to recommend that the role of the Government be limited to specifying norms is a clear abdication of the constitutional and statutory duty cast upon Government to protect and preserve the environment and is in the teeth of the "precautionary principle". The Supreme Court adverted to the serious health hazards that are posed by environmental pollution including pollution emanating from vehicular sources. In metropolitan towns vehicular pollution is a major source of environmental pollution. Citing from a journal of the Pollution Control Board, the Supreme Court noted that a study undertaken by a Swedish consultancy. Ecotraffic showed that the cancer potency of diesel vehicles is more than two times higher than that of petrol vehicles in India. But if on particulate emissions which are the most harmful of exhaust emissions are considered ,the carcinogenic effect of one new diesel car is equivalent to 24 petrol cars and 84 new CNG cars on the road. The Supreme Court noted that it was with the object of controlling air pollution that the Bhure Lal Committee recommended the use of CNG which was accepted by all parties including Union of India. In the present case, it would be significant to extract the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of the judgment because they constitute a judicial recognition of the importance of CNG/LPG in the reduction of vehicular pollution. The Supreme Court held thus : "With the emissions from the CNG vehicles being more than comparable with Euro IV standards, the contention of the Union of India that a mix of diesel buses and CNG buses would make a difference of only 2% in the pollution levels is patently untenable. In the case of particulates, current CNG vehicles are 15 times better than Euro II diesel vehicles (with 500 ppm sulphur) and only Euro IV diesel vehicles are comparable to CNG vehicles. In fact, the certificate issued by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) to the bus manufacturers says that particulate emissions were negligible and could not be measured. The aforesaid analysis emphasizes the need for change to non-liquid fuel like CNG or LPG so as to improve the air quality in this country and not merely of Delhi. In fact, the certificate issued by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) to the bus manufacturers says that particulate emissions were negligible and could not be measured. The aforesaid analysis emphasizes the need for change to non-liquid fuel like CNG or LPG so as to improve the air quality in this country and not merely of Delhi. Such changeover may perhaps obviate the need to manufacture vehicles meeting Euro III or Euro IV standards." (emphasis supplied) The Supreme Court held that merely lowering the sulphur and benzene contents in diesel and petrol is of little effect unless and until Oil Companies guarantee that the fuel which is sold from dispensing stations is pure and unadulterated. 15. We have devoted a considerable degree of detail to a consideration of this aspect of the SIES report because in our view the second issue which was considered by the resort was not open to re-examination in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta (supra). 16. The third issue which has been considered by the SIES report is the Heavy Duty Diesel Engines Retrofitment Programme in the US and other countries. The recommendations in this regard are to be read together with attachments M and N to the report. Attachment M refers to the Puget Sound Clear Air Agency in the US which has developed a programme to make diesel vehicles cleaner. The voluntary initiative consists of the supply of ultra low sulphur diesel. The report states that ultra-low sulphur diesel is being supplied by Philips Petroleum in the US 5 years prior to the date which the US Environmental Protection Agency has required such fuel to be made available nationally. Counsel appearing for the public interest petitioner has placed before the Court a paper brought out by the Canacian Environmental Protection Agency which notes that in the US the current standard of 500 ppm for sulphur is to be brought down to 15 ppm on 1st June, 2006 at refineries and points of improve. The basis of the recommendations of the SIES report is the diesel engines retrofit programme in the US which aims to deliver upto 90% reduction in toxic emission. The basis of the recommendations of the SIES report is the diesel engines retrofit programme in the US which aims to deliver upto 90% reduction in toxic emission. What the report has completely failed to notice is that the foundation of the programme in the US is the reduction in the relevant standard from 500 ppm to 15 ppm and even the said standard is to be effective from 2006. Hence, what is stated in the report has absolutely no relevance to the Indian context. 17. The SIES report has thus not carried out the minimum work that was required and it has not addressed the basic issue. Admittedly SIES did not even examine a representative sample of trucks. There is absolutely no application of mind to the quantities involved, to the age profile or to the time for retrofitment. The main focus of the report is on whether CNG is clean fuel. This is an issue which does not arise at all before the Court since it has been concluded by the Supreme Court in the judgment in M.C. Mehta (supra). The Court cannot countenance an attempt to deal these proceedings into a dispute between the proponents of CNG and Diesel. That is not within the ambit of these proceedings. Finally the report proceeds on the basis that ultra-low sulphur high speed diesel and after treatment devices are available and that these yield results comparable to CNG. What has been ignored is that even in the US the reduction in the emission standard to 15 ppm is to take place only in 2006. Obviously this cannot have relevance to the present Indian situation. 18. The Expert Committee constituted by this Court under the Chairmanship of Mr. V.M. Lal, the then Transport Commissioner had in its recommendations provided that with effect from 1st January, 2001, all transport vehicles over the age of 15 years (except three wheelers and BEST Buses) shall be scrapped unless converted to clean fuel. With effect from 1st January, 2002 all transport vehicles over 8 years of age and plying in Mumbai City (except BEST Buses) were contemplated for being scrapped unless converted to clean fuel. This deadline as noted earlier was extended by the Division Bench of this Court. The expression "clean fuel" was defined by the V.M. Lal Committee to mean CNG or LPG. 19. This deadline as noted earlier was extended by the Division Bench of this Court. The expression "clean fuel" was defined by the V.M. Lal Committee to mean CNG or LPG. 19. During the course of the hearing, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that the age profile of transport vehicles registered in the City of Mumbai shows a reduction in 15 year old vehicles. Counsel for the public interest petitioners submitted before the Court that with a view to defeating the order of the Division Bench, vehicles are being shifted outside the City and the office of the R.T.O. is treating the directions of the Court as applicable only to the registration of 15 year old vehicles in Mumbai and not to the plying within Mumbai of 15 year old vehicles which are registered outside. Counsel for the RTO stated that the order of this Court is being implemented only qua the registration of vehicles exceeding the prescribed age in Mumbai and no steps are taken to prevent vehicles registered outside from plying within the city if they do not meet the parameters laid down in the order of the Division Bench. Such a course of action is impermissible. In our view, once the Court has laid down a cut off date for phasing out of fifteen year old vehicles or, as the case may be, eight year old vehicles, those cut off dates must apply to the plying of such vehicles within the City of Mumbai and not only to the registration of the vehicles within the city. Otherwise, the order of the Court would be liable to be defeated by the simple expedient of having these vehicles registered outside the City of Mumbai even though they are beyond the age limits fixed by the Court and are not converted to run on CNG. 20. We direct that the R.T.O. shall hereafter ensure that the directions already issued by this Court in regard to the phasing out of transport vehicles are duly observed and that transport vehicles whose age exceeds the cut off fixed by the Court are not allowed to ply within the city, unless converted to CNG, irrespective of where they are registered. 21. 21. Hence, it is not possible to accept the contention of Counsel for the several applicants to the effect that this Court should allow Euro II engines to be retrofitted on transport vehicles which are above fifteen years or as the case may be eight years old. The applicants have not been able to establish a case before this Court within the parameters laid down in the order of the Supreme Court dated 10th April, 2003. Similarly it is not possible to accept the contention of the applicants in the Chamber Summons for the installation of catalytic converters in substitution of the directions of the Court. The relief which has been claimed in the Chamber Summons lies beyond the ambit of these proceedings as laid down in the order of the Supreme Court dated 10th April, 2003. Moreover, the plea for the installation of catalytic converters has been duly considered and rejected by the representative of ARAI in the meeting held on 25th April, 2003. 22. We do not find any merit in the Notices of Motion and in the Chamber Summons. These are accordingly rejected. Notices of Motion and Chamber Summons rejected. -----