Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1090 (MAD)

Coimbatore Consumer Cause v. Union of India rep. by its Secretary thers

2005-07-18

D.MURUGESAN, MARKANDEY KATJU

body2005
Judgment :- D.Murugesan, J. This writ petition is filed by Coimbatore Consumer Cause seeking for a declaration that the use of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) to run automobile vehicles is illegal and violative of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Restriction of Use) Order, 1974. 2. It is brought to our notice that the writ petition is on the basis of violation of section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prohibits the use of LPG to run automobile vehicles. 3. It is brought to our notice by Mr.S.Manikumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel that after the writ petition was filed the Government issued The Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Use in Motor Vehicles) Order, 2001 on 1.8.2001 allowing the use of LPG by imposing stringent conditions. Pursuant to the same, section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also amended permitting fitment of a conversion kit to the use of LPG in automobiles. In terms of the amendment in section 52, Rule 115C was also inserted and the same was communicated by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to all the Secretaries/Commissioners of all States for giving appropriate instructions to all the Regional Transport Officers in regard to the use of LPG as fuel in RC book. 4. Mr.S.Manikumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel brought to our notice the judgment of the Apex Court in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, (2002)4 SCC 356 wherein the Apex Court observed that the Union of India has informed that LPG has also been permitted to be used as fuel by the transport sector and the same can and should be an alternate fuel to CNG available to the users as LPG is environmentally acceptable. Similar view is also expressed by the Apex Court in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, (2004)10 SCC 180 . In view of the above subsequent development, in our opinion, the petitioner cannot have further grievance as to the relief sought for in the writ petition. In view of the above no orders are necessary in this writ petition and it is dismissed. No costs.