Disposed

Driving(Cadd) v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC14 Nov 2017W.P.(C)/9993/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner questioned lack of statutory regime for regulating drunken driving and underage drinking in Delhi. The Court treated the petition as a representation and directed the Government to examine the issues and frame necessary policies within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition treated as a representation and respondents directed to take a formal view on the issues within three months.

Driving(Cadd) Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~18

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C)No.9993/2017

¶4

% Date of decision : 14^th November, 2017

¶5

DRIVING(CADD) ..... Petitioner

¶6

Through : Mr. Angad Mehta, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASCGNCTD with Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶11

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶12

GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶13

CM No.407572017( exemption )

¶14

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶15

The application is disposed of.

¶16

W.P.(C)No.9993/2017

¶17

The writ petitioner complains against the perils of drunken driving as well as underage drinking. The major grievance of the petitioner is that there is no statutory regime nor any government policies regarding regulation of the same or any mandatory checking of the age of the consumers of alcohol. In this regard, the petitioner

¶18

W.P.(C)No.9993/2017 Page 1 of 2

¶19

draws attention to the statutory power of the Government of NCT of Delhi under Section 81 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 and the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 framed thereunder.

¶20

The matter relates to formulation of a policy which would enable proper implementation of statutory provisions. In our view, the issues flagged by the petitioner deserves to be examined by the Government and if necessary, proper policy as well as regulations regarding the implementation of the statute need to be framed by the respondents.

¶21

In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the writ petition, copy whereof stands served upon them, as a representation and to take a formal view thereon on the issues pressed therein within a period of three months from today. The respondents shall inform the writ petitioner, as well as its counsel, of the view taken forthwith thereupon.

¶22

This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶23

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶25

NOVEMBER 14, 2017/ kr

¶26

W.P.(C)No.9993/2017 Page 2 of 2

Driving(Cadd) v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Driving(Cadd) v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

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

Shravan Maan Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ankur Mutreja Vs Union of India

S.K.Dhamija Vs Industrial Tribunal No.Iii & Anr.

Shiv Shanker Vs Boutique International Exports

Union of India & Ors. Vs Jiwdhan & Ors.

Ranbir Singh Vs UOI & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs UOI & Ors.

Ajmil Enterprises, Mumbai Vs Secretary Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs and Another

Major Dr. Surendra Poonia Vs Badminton Association of India and Ors.

Jai Kumar Arya & Ors. Vs Chhaya Devi & Anr.

Akhilesh Verma & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rakesh Kumar & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shyamal Kumar Bandyopadhyay Vs Chairman of National Disaster Management Authority and Ors.

Amer Vaid Vs Dmrc Ltd. and Ors.