Disposed

Iftekhar Ahmed Khan Khurshid Ahmed Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC23 Sept 2019PIL/86/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL challenging a circular that removed the requirement to record front wheel alignment checks in fitness certificates. The court held that while no writ was needed, respondents must ensure future certificates record front wheel alignment checks as per amended Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation is disposed of; respondents bound to ensure future fitness certificates record front wheel alignment checks as per law.

Iftekhar Ahmed Khan Khurshid Ahmed Khan… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

PIL86-2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.86 OF 2014

¶6

Iftekhar Ahmed Khan s/o Khurshid Ahmed Khan, Age : 40 years, Occu. Business, R/o Flat No.8, Haq Tower, Railway Station Area, Aurangabad PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, State Transport Department Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶9

The Commissioner of Transport, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Administrative Building, Opp. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Garden Govt. Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai

¶10

The Regional Transport Officer, R.T.O. Office, Railway Station Road, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr. Vishwajit R. Jain (Kamboj), Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for the respondent

¶12

CORAM: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, CJ & R.G. AVACHAT, J.

DATE: 23.09.2019

PIL86-2014.doc

- 2 -

PER COURT :

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

2] Challenge in the Public Interest Litigation is to the Circular dated 16^th January, 2013 doing away with the requirement of recording in the fitness certificate that the alignment of the front wheel of motor vehicles in the State of Maharashtra has been checked.

¶19

3] To understand the grievance raised, reference could be made to Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The form of certificate contemplated by the same excludes a reference to inspecting the alignment of the front wheel of a motor vehicle. However, Rule 45 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 specifies a form vide Sub-Rule (11) thereof and the form mandates that the Inspector of Motor Vehicles has to record in the certificate of fitness that the alignment of the front wheel of the motor vehicle has been checked.

¶20

4] Since the form prescribed under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules excluded a reference to the inspection of the alignment of the front wheel of a motor vehicle, the circular in question does away with the

¶21

PIL86-2014.doc

¶22

- 3 -

¶23

requirement of recording in the certificate of inspection that the alignment of the front wheel has been checked.

¶24

5] The requirement is to the effect that while inspecting the motor vehicle for issuance of fitness certificate, the alignment of the front wheel is checked but is not so reflected in the certificate of fitness for the reason the Central Legislation does not mandate so.

¶25

6] Suffice it to state that an entry in the concurrent list resulting in a Central Legislation as also the State Legislation, pertaining to the areas not occupied by the Central Legislation can be occupied by the State Legislation and thus, it can be argued that the State Legislation has to be given effect to.

¶26

7] However, we note that on 1^st September, 2019, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been amended and as per amended Section 56, the certificates of inspection have to be issued by authorized Testing Stations notified by the State Government. The fitness certificates have to be in accordance with the Rules made by the Central Government.

¶27

8] Learned counsel for the respondents states that as per the

¶28

PIL86-2014.doc

¶29

- 4 -

¶30

amended Central Motor Vehicle Rules, the authorized Testing Stations have to test the alignment of the front wheel of a motor vehicle and so record in their reports, meaning thereby, the stand of the respondents is that henceforth the fitness certificates would refer the fact that the alignment of the front wheel of a motor vehicle has been checked.

¶31

9] Thus, no mandamus as prayed for needs to be issued. However, the respondents would be bound by the stand taken by their counsel and ensure that henceforth the fitness certificates issued by the authorized Testing Stations record that the alignment of the front wheel of a motor vehicle is as per the requirement of law.

¶32

10] The Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

¶33

11] No costs.

¶34

(R.G. AVACHAT, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶35

npj/PIL86-2014.doc

Iftekhar Ahmed Khan Khurshid Ahmed Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iftekhar Ahmed Khan Khurshid Ahmed Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandu Bhimrao Patil and Another Vs Union of India and Others

Mr. Shrimant S. Bansode Vs the Commissioner, Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corp. and Ors.

Harish Shrirang Daware Vs the Union of India and Others

Shivaji Anantrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramkrishna Bhagwan Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abdul Munaf Abdul Raheman Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abhijit Ramesh Mapari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prakash Baburao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ratnadeep Sidramappa Utage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Narayan Ramrao Upare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pandurang Kisan Khillare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gangadhar Maroti Ghule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chandu Rajaram Tompe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prabhakar Rukhmanrao Kulthe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.