1. SC stays HC order stalling operation of quadricycles

SC stays HC order stalling operation of quadricycles

SC has stayed the Karnataka High Court order that stalled the introduction of quadricycle, a new category of commercial vehicle, meant for intra city public transport system.

By: | New Delhi | Updated: February 5, 2015 5:18 AM
quadricycle, quadricycle india, quadricycle latest news, quadricycle news, Supreme Court, Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court has stayed the Karnataka High Court order that stalled the introduction of quadricycle, a new category of commercial vehicle, meant for intra city public transport system.

The Supreme Court has stayed the Karnataka High Court order that stalled the introduction of quadricycle, a new category of commercial vehicle, meant for intra city public transport system.

A bench headed by justice Dipak Misra while seeking response from the Centre, the Karnataka government and others stayed the proceedings in the matter before the Karnataka HC. “As an interim measure, it is directed that there shall be stay of operation of the impugned order dated August 25, 2014, till the next date of hearing,” the SC said in its order and posted the matter for further hearing on March 10.

The order was passed on an appeal filed by Pune-based auto component maker SM Auto Engineering against the stay on the operation of a February last year’s notification by which the Central government had introduced certain amendments to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 so as to classify quadricycles as a new category of vehicles. The government had also promulgated separate and specific standards for motorised vehicles.

Even the road transport and highways ministry has now moved the SC wanting clubbing of all cases against the government’s notification to allow these vehicles on road from October 1. Asserting that quadricycles will “fundamentally change the country’s transport economy”, the Centre wants a nod from the apex court on plying of this new CV category.

Requesting the SC to set aside the restraint orders, the Centre submitted that the 2014 Rules were “urgent and hence was required to be enforced immediately”.

Certain manufacturers had opposed such vehicles and filed multiple petitions against the amended rules, which allowed the vehicles to ply, before different HCs of Karnataka, Delhi, Gujarat and Madras.

  1. No Comments.

Go to Top