[sunishsamuel]

Originally Posted by Yeldo

Nippon Toyota might just get enough time to offload their Crysta stock, I feel. Other than that, the future seems bleak for 2000+cc Diesels in Kerala also.

The "why 2000, why not 1500 or 2500 or some other cc" question might not hold grounds in the courts. There has to be a cut off / ceiling in some cases, and questioning the logic of that does not usually work in the courts.

Why not ? If facts are presented and argued, i am sure the honourable judge will analyze the point and provide a judgement based on the facts. If that does not happen then that's a denial on natural justice, isnt it ?

Pollution is a mix of multiple factors. I am keen to see the data that tells that 2000cc+ diesels are the cause for the pollution problem in kerala (or any other state), especially the cars and SUV's of that capactiy.

I also do not know why people co mingle issues; differential pricing of fuels, road width in Kerala to this ban. In the current road condition, traffic and discipline on our roads, I'd any day prefer a SUV than a sedan/hatch back. It not only provides comfort, gives me more confidence that i am safe (of course, other factors like speed, airbags etc are important) I have survived nasty crashes just because i was in a SUV that time. However, whenever i travel international, i prefer cars because its more disciplined there and i know unless i act smart, i won't get into any accidents. Of course, things are not hunky dory everywhere but much better than India (and i am fairly positive that our dear country is getting better, maybe its taking time). A fully kitted swift is still unsafe than a ford endeavour 3.2 titanium version, especially in kerala. And if the Ford is complying to the current law of the land (adhering to BSIV version of emission norms) then why can't i buy and use ? I am happy to be proved wrong.

A ceiling is acceptable, but it should be based on emission levels. I do not think a bus with 1.5ltr would ever be possible unless technology has some hacky way to do it. So higher capacity engines are needed. There should be strict enforcement on controlling exhaust emission. Successive governments failed to take strict action against pollution but that does not mean that a tribunal can come up with an overnight ban. The tribunal is headed by a judge and his team constituting (or supposed to constitute) of experts in the area. (Some of the Team-bhp members already pointed out the engine capacity, power, efficiency related topics but i thought reiterating is apt)

I am sure the tribunal is supposed to:

1) Analyse the impact of pollution caused by vehicles. Something in the lines of EPA
2) Gather data from various sources to identify root cause of pollution.
3) Provide direction to the industry on the path to follow to reduce pollution. The industry would include any that would directly or indirectly cause pollution. where is that roadmap other than "bans"
4) Provide guidelines in general so that the citizens of the country are not affected by the ill effects of pollution. This includes penalizing owners, heads of the state, transport corporations for poor maintenance of vehicles. Create a department in the lines of EPA which constitutes of highly ethical and honest officers. Give them powers to cancel registration of vehicles causing pollution.
5) Provide guidelines to credit/banking institutions on being generous to the cause of reducing pollution. i.e: loans at very low interest, incremental loans to existing customers if they want to upgrade/swap to a lower polluting vehicle (like a credit card balance transfer)
6) Provide support to the industry by informing government to reduce approval time lines for installing/importing new equipments, reduce or make 0% custom duty on equipments needed for industry to upgrade from high polluting machinery to low polluting machinery.

I do not think arbitrary powers are part of any tribunal. Please correct me if i am wrong.

Some more reading on tribunals

http://legalperspectives.blogspot.in...t-supreme.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...n_Tribunal_Act

I can think of the way industry and public moved on from two stroke to 4 stroke motor cycles. Engine capacity was not the cut off/concern. And government gave time for the two stroke bikes to be taken off the road and allowed the already registered bikes to run till 15 years (or their usable life). The transition was good, everyone including Yamaha and Suzuki (TVS/IND) launched their 4 stroke vehicles and this did not create a problem in the market or any confusion for the owners. When the time came for upgrade, people moved on to the latest available 4 stroke without issues. Some still keep their 2 strokes for their sentiment but not for regular use. Why can't same logic be applied on cars ?

[shobhitk]

Originally Posted by MinivanDriver

What are the chances of getting relief for private vehicles? Can a PIL be filed? I would be happy to contribute to the cause. I am based in Bangalore. My Innova is 10 years old.

No doubt that you can file PIL but the experience shows that the PILs filed by the advocates and reputed NGOs or personalities have better chances of success. Despite this, you can file a PIL or join any existing PIL by making a request that your PIL should be 'tagged' with other PIL.

Originally Posted by sunishsamuel

Why not ? If facts are presented and argued, i am sure the honourable judge will analyze the point and provide a judgement based on the facts. If that does not happen then that's a denial on natural justice, isnt it ?

Pollution is a mix of multiple factors. I am keen to see the data that tells that 2000cc+ diesels are the cause for the pollution problem in kerala (or any other state), especially the cars and SUV's of that capactiy.

I have survived nasty crashes just because i was in a SUV that time.

A fully kitted swift is still unsafe than a ford endeavour 3.2 titanium version, especially in kerala. And if the Ford is complying to the current law of the land (adhering to BSIV version of emission norms) then why can't i buy and use ? I am happy to be proved wrong.

A ceiling is acceptable, but it should be based on emission levels.

There should be strict enforcement on controlling exhaust emission. Successive governments failed to take strict action against pollution but that does not mean that a tribunal can come up with an overnight ban.

I am sure the tribunal is supposed to:
1) Analise the impact of pollution caused by vehicles. Something in the lines of EPA
2) Gather data from various sources to identify root cause of pollution.
3) Provide direction to the industry on the path to follow to reduce pollution. The industry would include any that would directly or indirectly cause pollution. where is that roadmap other than "bans"
4) Provide guidelines in general so that the citizens of the country are not affected by the ill effects of pollution. This includes penalizing owners, heads of the state, transport corporations for poor maintenance of vehicles. Create a department in the lines of EPA which constitutes of highly ethical and honest officers. Give them powers to cancel registration of vehicles causing pollution.
5) Provide guidelines to credit/banking institutions on being generous to the cause of reducing pollution. i.e: loans at very low interest, incremental loans to existing customers if they want to upgrade/swap to a lower polluting vehicle (like a credit card balance transfer)
6) Provide support to the industry by informing government to reduce approval time lines for installing/importing new equipments, reduce or make 0% custom duty on equipments needed for industry to upgrade from high polluting machinery to low polluting machinery.

When the time came for upgrade, people moved on to the latest available 4 stroke without issues. Some still keep their 2 strokes for their sentiment but not for regular use. Why can't same logic be applied on cars ?

kudos.
it is really great that the BHpians are firing all the cylinders, to gauge the problem of sudden ban on diesel cars of certain age or capacity.

The Central Government does not enjoy required majority to place this issue in 9th schedule of the Constitution, so that the matter goes beyond the reach of NGT.
the points raised by you are very pertinent. If points raised in this forum and elsewhere, are placed before the NGT/High Court or Honorable Supreme Court, they might reconsider the ban or may find a way out to bail out the poor customers and the car makers out of financial mess.

[Yeldo]

Originally Posted by sunishsamuel

Why not ? If facts are presented and argued, i am sure the honourable judge will analyze the point and provide a judgement based on the facts. If that does not happen then that's a denial on natural justice, isnt it ?

All your points are valid.

I am not in support of clubbing this NGT ban with matters like road width and anti- SUV rhetoric, either.

It is unfair in every sense to refuse registration for a vehicle which has been produced by a manufacturer in compliance with existing legislation in a country.

But we need to have a realistic outlook on things.

The HC granted a 2 month's stay on 2,000+cc vehicles because Nippon Toyota, a dealer, who happens to be a concerned party, approached it. As the government is yet to file an appeal, the HC did not stay the 10+ year ban on at least the public buses and fire & rescue vehicles and ambulances. Nippon Toyota's grievance was not about this, so the High Court did not go into the matter. That is how things tend to work in our courts.

We cannot ask why there is a minimum age of voting, of getting a license, of contesting in an election, or question what is the significance of a particular threshold for tax slabs, or ask why we shold have elections every 5 years- why cannot that be 4 years or 6 years. The courts shall throw the blanket of "legislative wisdom" on us.

Similarly if we ask the NGT why 2000 and not 1500 or 3000, the courts simply say that the most vital `public interest' at present is the reversal of the environmental degradation, and any step towards that is good intention gives it ample power to do whatever its wisdom may dictate.

Sadly the SC now seems to play along with this "get things done" approach rather than the studied, detached and deliberate ways that we have seen from the courts hitherto.

Many arguments were put before the courts and tribunals regarding the odd even scheme and Diesel ban in Delhi. Did they have the intended effects? No, at least for the time being.

When it comes to matters like "climate change", "pollution", etc., the courts seem to be interpreting any data available against automobiles. Automobiles are the favorite whipping boys.

In Kerala, where there are umpteen problems requiring more immediate attention like illegal quarrying, illegal earth-moving, illegal sand mining, illegal reclamation of wetlands, this attack by the NGT bench on automobiles is flawed and misplaced to say the least.

But we may be helpless about it.

All said, I still point my finger at those self styled litigators who seem to throw such matters at the courts and use 'public interest' to inflict and impose themselves relentlessly on the society.

[Captain Haddock]

Originally Posted by Yeldo

All your points are valid.

I am not in support of clubbing this NGT ban with matters like road width and anti- SUV rhetoric, either.

It is unfair in every sense to refuse registration for a vehicle which has been produced by a manufacturer in compliance with existing legislation in a country.

But we need to have a realistic outlook on things.When it comes to matters like "climate change", "pollution", etc., the courts seem to be interpreting any data available against automobiles. Automobiles are the favorite whipping boys.

In Kerala, where there are umpteen problems requiring more immediate attention like illegal quarrying, illegal earth-moving, illegal sand mining, illegal reclamation of wetlands, this attack by the NGT bench on automobiles is flawed and misplaced to say the least.

But we may be helpless about it.

All said, I still point my finger at those self styled litigators who seem to throw such matters at the courts and use 'public interest' to inflict and impose themselves relentlessly on the society.

I agree with most of your views here. There are hundreds of litigations being filled in front of the judiciary. The ones which make no sense are thrown out prima facia. If the NGT takes a decision, it is to respected till a court of law repels it.

I also have reservations about the practical Implementation of the order.

There has been instances where judges in lower courts have issued death sentences and higher courts have let the accused free, even judges of the higher courts shall under no circumstances criticize the lower court judges despite changing the verdict.

In other earlier posts by certain members I saw very strong words being used to describe the NGT.

Since Team Bhp is a nationally recognized forum, I request moderators to remove posts which use Un parliamentary language to criticize the judiciary.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by Captain Haddock

In other earlier posts by certain members I saw very strong words being used to describe the NGT.

Since Team Bhp is a nationally recognized forum, I request moderators to remove posts which use Un parliamentary language to criticize the judiciary.

Please spare the rhetoric. NGT is not a judicial body, its a quasi judicial body comprising of retired judges, not currently active serving judges. If they come out with half baked schemes which are based on bans, then they must expect resistance and comments. A retired judge is a retired government servant and not god to be above all criticism. More information about NGT can be obtained online example: http://www.conservationindia.org/resources/ngt

[motorheart]

I don't think anyone questioned or used words which are not apt. There are many instances where the higher courts have challenged the lower court and criticised. In case of the NGT verdict, even high court did stay the order based on fact that there was little ground work done to substantiate the ruling.

Most of the trucks run with a life of 15 to 20 years..and the capital expenses are factored in the per kilometre charges they charge for the cargo movement. Once you limit the shell life to 10 years you will see a surge in the cargo prices and that will affect the goods movement.

This is decision is having wide spread implications on our economy as stated by union transport minister.

[Captain Haddock]

Originally Posted by AB@TVMBHP

I really do think the man who made the rule was drunk while making it. Such an idiotic and foolish rule ;

Will these idiots pay back the amount the car owners paid for the extra 5yrs? Certainly not it seems.

If we ask these clowns who made such a statement to cycle to work or to walk, will they do it? Cartainly not.

such silly and mad rules must not be made or rather the NGT must be made to keep its mouths shut.

Terms like drunkards, clowns, idiots may not be the best words to criticise the tribunal.

The ruling can be debated on but the credibility of the tribunal cannot be criticised, especially using Un parliamentary language.

It is up to the honourable moderators to decide if such posts deserve to be displayed to a national audience .

The Government will file an appeal and the matter will be sub judice, I wouldn't comment more on this thread.

[aamateen46]

I feel that without proper guidelines on what needs to be done for existing impacted cars/ on-the-verge cars, this ban will have grave consequences on overall economy without any justifiable green benefits. Hope this ruling is not extended to other states

[shobhitk]

Originally Posted by Captain Haddock

Terms like drunkards, clowns, idiots may not be the best words to criticise the tribunal.

The ruling can be debated on but the credibility of the tribunal cannot be criticised, especially using Un parliamentary language.

It is up to the honourable moderators to decide if such posts deserve to be displayed to a national audience .

The Government will file an appeal and the matter will be sub judice, I wouldn't comment more on this thread.

Healthy and constructive criticism is acceptable to the courts. Captain Haddock is 100% correct in requesting for toning down the comments. NGT has WIDE powers. We should wait for the outcome of the PIL filed before the Kerala High Court.

[Strella]

Notwithstanding the various reasons, I think the future of diesel vehicles is a little uncertain at the moment.

First , NCR and now Kerala, and henceforth may be a few more metro cities may be following the Supreme Courts example.

Also, today they are banning diesel vehicles which are 10 years old. Tomorrow, the same maybe reduced to 7-8 years also. Nobody knows. It would be a safer bet to go along with petrol engines for the time being. The difference between the prices of the 2 fuels is also getting narrower with every price revision.

A difficult scenario for people on the verge of buying diesel cars in the affected regions.

[chakky]

Originally Posted by darklord

It seems the new government is largely supportive of the NGT order, but only wants more time.
Read more at: http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/...news-1.1091402

I think the government was playing safe. You do not know who will get rubbed on the wrong side by stating outright that environment is not important .

[anjan_c2007]

Bypassing other metros and looking at the small towns in Kerala under the microscope is all unwarranted.

Why dont fellows at the NGT direct some institutions like the National Environmental Engineering and Research Institute (NEERI) to conduct a case by case study starting with each Metro to identify the main source of SPM, NOx,CO, SO and other pollutants in the air and then take them up one by one.? The government vehicles, uselessly maintained private trucks and buses, taxis, autos, the construction industry,micro, small, medium and large scale industries in the vicinity of the metros will surely emerge as the prime contributors to the city pollution.

Why the hell they are after privately owned personal automobiles ?

[DicKy]

Originally Posted by anjan_c2007

Bypassing other metros and looking at the small towns in Kerala under the microscope is all unwarranted.

Guess, the Kerala unit of NGT wanted to create some news to show that they exist and what else than an out-right ban can show that.

Originally Posted by anjan_c2007

......main source of SPM, NOx,CO, SO and other pollutants in the air and then take them up one by one.? The government vehicles, uselessly maintained private trucks and buses, taxis, autos, the construction industry,micro, small, medium and large scale industries in the vicinity of the metros will surely emerge as the prime contributors to the city pollution.

1. Which is easier?
Hard/complicated/scientific work that will bring good effect on the environment, but gets buried in the page 6 of the newspapers.
Or, a ban that practically entails no work at all, yet will catch the headlines of every media possible.

2. All those parties, either have power; legitimate or illegitimate, muscle and money influence. touching them would cause heavy outrage.

Originally Posted by anjan_c2007

Why the hell they are after privately owned personal automobiles ?

They are the cash cows who just mumble and continue their work without agitating. So easy target.
Also, they are the creamy layer who take away precious public space with their huge land yachts, gulp down precious resources costing foreign exchange, cause accidents with their reckless driving and over speeding with machines that are better suited to phoren highways than our poor roads.

So they should be and must be punished, in the eyes of the honoured public servants, who happen to travel in chauffeured cars that may also happen to have tinted glasses that are closed.

[chakky]

I was going through this article to see what the pollution levels are in Kerala and funnily I see the following comment :
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/...cle6084740.ece



"While Sulphur dioxide and Oxides of Nitrogen were well within the permissible limits, the RSPM values overshot the permissible levels several days in many months during the five-year period between 2009 and 2013. It was through the 30 stations across the State that the Board assessed the ambient air quality."

From what I understand diesel cars contribute to sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen..if so we are well within the maximum limits.

RSPM is - respirable suspended particulate matter which is mostly due to construction activities specially like the Metro construction, flat/buildings, crusher mills, etc

If that is the case, why the ban on Diesels? If you read wiki on Diesel exhaust, the only particulate matter it gives out is when you see a opaque black smoke due to incomplete burning of fuel. That yes should be considered unacceptable, it shows a engine in poor condition or poor driving. Only time i have seen such smoke is when people mix kerosene or have engine problems due to non cleaning of filters causing incomplete combustion!

Does anyone have the reports of 2015 or 2016?

http://www.keralapcb.nic.in/cmsadmin...th%20May16.pdf

I found this link which shows while 24 hour permissible limits in Thiruvananthapuram would be 50 & 80 for SO2, it got a maximum of only to 4.

Like wise in a non rainy month like Sep 2015
http://www.keralapcb.nic.in/cmsadmin...ly%20Pol28.pdf
Its maximum is only 5.2

Now when I see this, it further reiterates, NGT is not working with any data per se...just inaugurated their NGT Kerala bench with a Bang!!

[chakky]

http://www.techscripts.org/feb_2015/feb201503.pdf

Another report of Pollution in Ernakulam District in February 2015


==========
Table 1 .API Values for Each Category
SL.NO AIR POLLUTION INDEX
VALUES
AIR POLLUTION INDEX
1 0-25 Clean air
2 25-50 Light Air Pollution
3 50-75 Moderate Air Pollution
4 75-100 Heavy Air Pollution
5 >100 Severe Air Pollution


Table 3: API Values for Various Stations
Sl.No Sampling Station API Air Pollution Index
1 Angamali 47.87 light
2 Aluva 39.72 light
3 kothamangalam 38.2 light
4 Kochi 59.38 Moderate

V. CONCLUSION
This study has made an attempt to envisage the status of air quality in Ernakulum district. It is observed that even though the average value of concentration of air pollutants is within the threshold limits prescribed by Central Pollution Control Board, higher levels were observed on pollution and its emission poses a serious threat to biotic and abiotic ecosystems. Further, there is an urgent need to improve the monitoring and emission inventory capabilities in the study area, which is a prerequisite and essential for
formulating various air pollution control and management strategies.

============