* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2174/2007 % Date of decision : 28th January, 2009. OM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner Through MS. Kiran Bairwa, advocate. versus U.O.I & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr.Yogesh Malhotra, advocate for R-1. Ms. Zubeda Begum, advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R By way of the present Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner alleges non compliance and flouting of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules by trucks/vehicles. It is alleged that only trucks/vehicles with Euro II & III Emission Norms can ply and transport goods in Delhi. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that National Permits are issued in case of goods carriages and All India Tourist Permit are issued in case of passenger vehicles and it is mandatory that these vehicles should comply with Euro II norms. It is also stated that Supreme Court has issued directions that goods’ vehicles more than 15 years old, from the date of initial registration, should not ply in Delhi. It is stated that the Transport Directorate is ensuring compliance of the Motor Vehicles Act and the directions issued by the Supreme Court. 3. Our attention is drawn to the counter affidavit which states that 146 goods carriages registered outside Delhi and 39 vehicles registered in Delhi which were engaged by oil sector undertakings have been prosecuted since March, 2006 till November, 2007 for violation of the aforesaid enactment and permit conditions. Our attention is also drawn to the Order dated 28th February, 2007 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1349/2007 titled Dev Raj versus Union of India and others wherein similar contentions were raised. In the said case this Court noticed several orders and directions passed by the Supreme Court in respect of commercial vehicles. The said Writ Petition was disposed of observing that passing of fresh orders is likely to cause confusion and conflict with the Orders/directions passed by the Supreme Court. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner therein to approach Bhure Lal Committee. 4. In view of the affidavit and Order dated 28th February, 2007 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1349/2007, we are not inclined to the pass any further direction/orders and entertain the present Writ Petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. If required the petitioner may approach Bhure Lal Committee with specific instances and grounds. CHIEF JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, J. JANUARY 28, 2009 P