On Tuesday the Supreme Court imposed costs of rupees 8 lakh on a petitioner in Anurag Saxena and Anr. v. Union of India case in which the petitioner moved to the Court challenging the ban in Delhi on diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years.
The bench comprises Justices L Nageswara Rao, AS Bopanna and BR Gavai stated that the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Anurag Saxena was frivolous.
Further, the court also ordered the court registry to not register any writ petitions filed by the advocate before the Supreme Court.
The court in its order held that –
“Two advocates who are practicing in the Supreme Court have entered into this misadventure. We warned them about this. An exemplary cost of ₹8 lacs is imposed on the petitioner. The registry will not entertain any writ petition by the advocate,”
The PIL contended that the cap of 10 years and 15 years on vehicles in Delhi is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and discriminatory.
The petitioner who appeared in-person submitted that
“Banning already existing vehicles will create more carbon footprints as manufacturing new cars and vehicles create more carbon footprints. That’s why the 10 years and 15 years Rule is void. Why there is arbitrariness only for certain places? Why not everywhere?“.
The matter is already heard and decided by the orders of the National Green Tribunal and the Supreme Court as well, accordingly the bench at the outset warned the petitioner citing earlier precedents.
In 2018 The Supreme Court mandated that the Transport Department of Delhi ban diesel vehicles more than 10 years old and petrol vehicles more than 15 years from plying within Delhi and National Capital Region (NCR).
Justice Rao cautioned to the petitioner that
“You have seen the order of the NGT and every other order and still you are filing this petition. Are you sure about this? We will impose heavy costs and pass comments which will also impact your career in the long term. Think about that,”
The petitioner, however, went ahead with his arguments and dew to a close, the Court dismissed the plea while imposing costs.
