IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 30126 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- ASSOCIATION OF AUTHORISED TESTING STATIONS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES (KERALA) REGD NO.T/84/97, REGD OFFICE, TKD PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.V.MOHANKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RTO, ALAPUZHA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 30939 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 30126 & 30939 OF 2007 ========================= Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T In WP(c) No.30126/07, the challenge is against Ext.P1 and petitioner seeks declaration that insistence for the equipments capable of testing Bharat-III standards for issuance/renewal of licensee for testing stations is arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner is an association of authorised testing stations of Motor vehicles in Kerala and the writ petitioner in WP(c) 30939/07 are some of its members, who are also seeking identical reliefs. 2. The provocation for filing these writ petitions is the issuance of Ext.P1 circular issued by the 2nd respondent. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that this was issued following the amendment made to the Central Motor Vehicle Rules vide notification GSR 111(E) dated 10/2/2004, revising the procedure for testing automative emission for issue of pollution under WPC 30126 & 30939/07 :2 : control certificate. Although Ext.P1 circular was issued as early as on 20th of January 2007, the challenge has been raised in this writ petition only in October, 2007. 3. Petitioners tell me that they are mainly aggrieved by the last portion of Ext.P1 providing for cancellation of licence except in a case where their equipments are upgraded to the standards specified in Ext.P1. Petitioners submit that with the existing equipments that they have, they are capable of measuring the pollution levels and issue certificate as per the revised standards and therefore upgradation as specified in Ext.P1 is unnecessary. I am not in a position to agree with the counsel for the petitioners. If a rule making authority revised the procedure for testing automative emission for the issue of pollution control certificate and in its wisdom has specified the best method for measuring the same, this court will not be justified in sitting in judgment over the wisdom of the authority concerned and substitute its wisdom. Apart from making this assertion, petitioners have not produced any materials in support of this contention. 4. Petitioners contend that the specification inExt.P1 providing for equipments are to help certain particular WPC 30126 & 30939/07 :3 : manufacturers. I am not in a position to take cognizance of this submission either. This is for the reason that the averment so made by the petitioners comes in the realm of malafides and if so, the petitioners ought to have brought the beneficiaries whom the 2nd respondent is seeking to help, in the party array. 5. Lastly, it is contended that it will be arbitrary to implement Ext.P1 without giving time to the existing testing centres, whom the petitioners represent, to upgrade their infrastructure. Here again, I notice that the rules were revised by notification dated 10/2/2004 and Ext.P1 circular was issued on 20/1/2007. Therefore, more than four years has passed since revision of the rules and almost an year has passed since the issuance of Ext.P1. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for granting any further extension. Viewed in the background of the purpose that is sought to be achieved, I think postponing implementation of Ext.P1 can only be harmful to the society and therefore also, request cannot be granted. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp