Judgment This is a Public Interest Litigation filed pointing out the illegal plying of battery operated rickshaws (commonly known as E-rickshaws). 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties including the learned Advocate General. 3. Shri Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.8 took a contention that since the matter is covered by Rule 2 (u) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is not to be treated as a motor vehicle and, therefore, there is no need to get it registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. The 8th respondent is carrying on business of sales of such vehicles in the State of Uttarakhand. Today, the learned Advocate General would point out that the provision which is relied on by the learned counsel for the 8th respondent has been substituted by the Notification published on 24th April 2014. Therein, in Rule 2 (u) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, in place of the previous proviso, the proviso, which is relied on by the 8th respondent has, however, been substituted. The proviso to Rule 2 (u) of the said Rules reads as follows:- “Provided that a two wheeled battery operated vehicle shall not be deemed to be a motor vehicle if all the following conditions are verified and authorized by any testing agency specified in rule 126, namely:- (a) vehicle is equipped with an electric motor having thirty minute power less than 0.25kW; (b) maximum speed of the vehicle is less than 25 km/hr; (c) vehicle is fitted with suitable brakes and retro reflective devices, i.e. one white reflector in the front and one red reflector at the rear; (d) unladen weight (excluding battery weight) of the vehicle is not more than 60 kg; (e) in case of pedal assisted vehicle equipped with an auxiliary electric motor, in addition to above, the thirty minute power of the motor is less than 0.25kW, whose output is progressively reduced and finally cut off as the vehicle reaches a speed of 25 km/hr, or sooner, if the cyclist stops pedalling”. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the 8th respondent has a case that the sale as such is not prohibited and the 8th respondent is only indulging in sales of three-wheelers which are manufactured by others. 5. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the 8th respondent has a case that the sale as such is not prohibited and the 8th respondent is only indulging in sales of three-wheelers which are manufactured by others. 5. Thus, the exemption from it being treated as a motor vehicle after the substitution is available only to a two-wheeler which satisfies the conditions mentioned therein. Since, we are in this case concerned with the three-wheelers, quite clearly it will be a motor vehicle, and it will be subjected to all the restrictions, which a motor vehicle subjected to under the Motor Vehicles Act and any other law for that matter. In such circumstances, we are inclined to pass the following interim order:- We record the submission of the learned Advocate General that the battery operated rickshaws (commonly known as E-rickshaws), are not being allowed to ply. Besides recording it, we direct that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 will take steps as per law to see that the vehicles in question, commonly known as E-rickshaws, will not be allowed to be plied till such time as they comply with the legal provisions in place. Regarding the issue relating to sale by the 8th respondent, pending further consideration and final orders in the matter, we direct, however, that if the 8th respondent proceeds with the sale of the vehicles in question, he shall specifically indicate in the invoice that the vehicles in question cannot be plied, except after obtaining whatever permission is required as per law in respect of a motor vehicle. 6. List on 25th September, 2014.