Ahaan Bhatnagar, Aryan Rajveer, and Rishabh Adlakha

MOOT COURT AND TRIAL ADVOCACY

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF
MODERN SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES & ORS.
(PETITIONERS)
v.
GOVERNMENT OF DELHI
(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

1
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………3
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………….6
ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………………..7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………..8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………….11
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………….19

2
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Association of School Vendors Association of School Vendors & Ors v
Central Board of Secondary Education
[2018] EWHC 95 (Admin)
Motor Vehicles Act The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
All Indian Public School All Indian Public School's Welfare v State
of U.P. and Others [1999] 9 SCC 279
New State Academy New State Academy Senior Secondary
School v The Lieutenant Governor, NCT of
Delhi & Ors [2004] SCC OnLine Del 494
NGT National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
Techi Tagi Tara Techi Tagi Tara vs Rajendra Singh
Bhandari AIR 2017 SC (SUPP) 962.
Rajeev Hitendra Pathak Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs Achyut
Kashinath Karekar & Ors, (2011) 9 SCC
541.
Standard Chatered Bank Standard Chartered Bank v. Dharminder
Bhohi & Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 341.
Tamil Nadu Pollution Board Tamil Nadu Polution Control Board vs
Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd., 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 221.; Article 142, Constitution
of India, 1950.
M/S Transcore M/s Transcore v. Union of India 2008 (1)
SCC 125.
Constitution The Constitution of India, 1950.
Anwar Ali Sarkar The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali
Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75.
E.P. Royappa E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR
1974 SCC 555.
M.C. Mehta M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2016) 15 SCC 133.

3
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
A.K. Gopalan A.K. Gopalan vs The State Of Madras 1950
AIR 27.
Chintamanrao Chintamanrao v. State of M.P., AIR 1951
SC 118.
Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay
vs Dilipkumar Raghavendranath AIR 1983
SC 109
Olga Tellis Olga Tellis. v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180.
M.J. Sivani M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors
AIR 1995 SC 1770.
Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v.
Vishwanath Pande Barde (1995) Supp 2
SCC 549.
ESI Corporation Regional Director, ESI Corporation v.
Francis De Costa AIR 1995 SC 1811.

4
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Background:
New Delhi, the capital of India, has been plagued with environmental concerns for its
residents, flora, and fauna. These concerns are driven by a combination of factors including,
inter alia, overutilization of scarce resources due to overpopulation; pervasive road dust and
industrial emissions as a source of air pollution; and air pollution caused by unclean engines
in diesel vehicles including two-wheelers and three-wheelers using two-stroke engines. As a
result, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) ranked New Delhi as the most polluted city
globally with the highest volume of particulate matter pollution, in May 2014.

Measures taken by the Delhi Green Tribunal and the Delhi Government:
The Delhi Green Tribunal (“DGT”) and the Delhi Government (“the Government”) issued
several measures to curb air pollution in the city. First, the DGT banned the use of diesel-
powered buses and trucks older than 5 years in the National Capital Region (“NCR”) on
April 08, 2015. Second, the Government issued an odd-even scheme (“scheme”) for vehicles
under which odd and even registered vehicles will only be allowed to be driven on alternate
days, starting January 01, 2016. Third, the Government issued an order for school buses to be
used as commercial vehicles after school hours, with the aim of promoting public
transportation.

The Dispute:
The Modern School of Environmental Studies (“MSES”) has been affected by the measures
taken by the DGT and the Government as it utilizes diesel-powered buses purchased
approximately 19 years ago in 2005 for the transportation of its students. Consequently,
MSES along with other schools and the Action Committee for Unaided Recognized Private
Schools (“the Committee”) has approached the Supreme Court of India, vide a writ petition,
challenging the validity of the odd-even scheme and the DGT’s ban on diesel-powered buses
and trucks older than 5 years in the NCR under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules,
1973 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, respectively. Further, a public interest litigation was
filed by a group of individuals before the Supreme Court of India challenging the

5
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
constitutional validity of the Odd-Even scheme under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the
Constitution of India, and contending that the scheme adversely affects certain groups such as
commuters to work, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups which rely on
personal transportation. Further, it is also contended that the scheme has been issued without
due process of public consultation and discussion. The Supreme Court of India has clubbed
the two petitions.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION NO. _____ OF 2023 SUBMITS TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UNDER ARTICLE
32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, IIMPLEADING THE GOVERNMENT OF
DELHI. THE PETITIONER SHALL BE BOUND BY ANY DETERMINATION OF THIS
COURT.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

6
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
THE PETITIONER HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Delhi Government’s order for requisition of school buses for commercial
uses is a violation of basic principles and provisions of DSEAR (Delhi School Education
Act and Rules) 1973?

2. Whether the Delhi Green Tribunal’s ban on use of diesel-powered buses and trucks and
buses older than 5 years is arbitrary since it is not a required rule under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988?

3. Whether the odd-even scheme is violative of the Constitution of India and the
fundamental rights enshrined therein?

7
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[1] The Delhi Government’s order for requisition of school buses for commercial use is
in violation of the basic principles and provisions of the DSEAR (Delhi School
Education Act and Rules).
The use of school buses commercially is ultra vires the Delhi School Education Act and
Rules. School buses shall only be used for transporting students and school staff to and from
the school as is clear from the judicial interpretation of school buses in comparison to
private/public vehicles by the courts. It further creates a clash between the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 and compulsory insurance. Insurance coverage for school buses only cover
situations where the school bus is being utilised to transport students and school staff to and
from the school, to further the school’s educational objective. Furthermore, school buses are
exempt from road tax. Their commercial use will violate the exemption of road tax provided
because no such exemption is given to private/public buses being used for commercial
purposes, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

[2] The Delhi Green Tribunal’s ban on use of diesel-powered buses and trucks older
than 5 years is arbitrary since it is not required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) gives the Central and State Government the power to
regulate vehicle age limits, cancellations, and restrictions. The DGT is not granted these
powers under the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, NGT Act’s Jurisdiction Is Limited; The
National Green Tribunal Act (NGT Act) allows the DGT to address environmental issues that
fall under the enactments listed in Schedule. The Motor Vehicles Act is not on this list.
Additionally, the NGT Act is primarily intended to settle disputes between parties, not take
preventative action on its own. DGT is a Statutory Tribunal; as a statutory tribunal, the DGT

8
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
is bound by the powers defined in its governing statute (the NGT Act). It cannot exercise
powers that are not explicitly granted, such as taking action on its own initiative (suo moto
jurisdiction) or powers akin to those of higher courts.

[3] The odd-even scheme is violative of the Constitution of India and the fundamental
rights enshrined therein.
The Petitioners submit that the odd-even scheme does not violate the Constitution of India
and the fundamental rights enshrined therein. First, scheme violates Article 14 as there is no
intelligible differentia in the classification using registration plates and the classification has
not reasonable nexus with the object of such act. Second, the odd-even scheme violates
Article 19 of the Constitution as it is an unreasonable restriction, It adversely affects the
fundamental rights of certain vulnerable groups such as commuters to work, disabled, and
other vulnerable groups that rely on their personal vehicles. Third, the odd-even scheme
violates Article 21 as it violates the right to livelihood. It deprives the means to livelihood for
certain individual, does not provide economic empowerment and social justice and the right
to security against sickness and disablement for a certain class of people.

9
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[1] Requisition of school buses for commercial use is in violation of the basic principles
and provisions of the DSEAR (Delhi School Education Act and Rules)
The petitioners submit that first, school buses are assets of the school and allowing them to be
used commercially violates the DSEAR, the Motor Vehicles Act and the road tax exemption.
[1.1]. Second, that such a requisition created a clear absurdity and clash between Insurance
law and the Motor Vehicles law. [1.2]

[1.1] Such a requisition violates the basic principles of the DSEAR, the Motor Vehicles
Act and the road tax exemption provided by law.
In the context of schools, commercialisation would refer to all the activities that have no
1
nexus to education but are being performed by school. This is not permissible. The term
"private service vehicle," as defined in Section 2(33) 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988,
refers to a motor vehicle designed or modified to carry more than six people, excluding the
driver, and is typically used by or on behalf of the owner to transport individuals related to
their trade or business activities without the intention of profiting from the transportation
services. However, this term does not include motor vehicles utilised for public reasons. In
essence, a "private service vehicle" is one that transports people on behalf of the owner rather
than for profit. As a result, such cars are free from additional taxes under the Act.
Similarly, a "educational institution bus" is not classified as a "public service vehicle."
According to Section 2(11) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 3, a "educational institution

1
Association of School Vendors
2
The Motor Vehicles Act 1988, s 2(33).
3
The Motor Vehicles Act 1988, s 2(11).
10
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
bus" is an omnibus owned by a college, school, or other educational institution and used
solely to carry students or staff in conjunction with the institution's activities. The
transportation of students on such buses is done in support of the institution's activities, not
for profit. As a result, a "educational institution bus" does not meet the requirements for
being classified as a "public service vehicle," which includes a variety of commercial
transportation modes such as maxi-cabs, motor-cabs, contract carriages and stage carriages.
As a result, if a motor vehicle is registered as a "educational institution bus" and used to
transport students to and from the institution for free, the additional tax imposed by Section 6
of the Act does not apply to it.4
Furthermore, the Court relied upon the aforementioned reasoning of the Court in 1999 in
another case. It held a notification emphasised that such buses, as long as they are utilised
only to transport kids and/or educational staff back and forth, will be exempt from road tax.
The Supreme Court found merit in the argument that school buses should not be classed as
commercial vehicles but as private buses. The Supreme Court granted the petitioner's request
to be exempted from paying road taxes while operating its school bus in the Delhi-NCR
zone.5 As it is clear from the aforementioned judicial interpretation and recognition, a clear
distinction has been made between private/public service vehicle and school buses. Thus,
they cannot be used interchangeably and also attract different tax liabilities. It would make no
sense for the legislation to make such a distinction and for the Courts to uphold the same if
school buses could also be utilised commercially. Therefore, the legislation’s intention of
categorising the educational institution buses separately is clear as day. Requiring school
buses to be operational as public service vehicles would be a prima facie violation of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, and the road tax
exemption provided to school buses.

[1.2] Second, that such a requisition created a clear absurdity and clash between
Insurance law and the Motor Vehicles law.
The petitioners submit there is a clear contradiction between the insurance coverage and the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 if school buses are required to be used publicly. Insurance of
school buses only covers the situations where the bus is being utilised for the purpose of
transporting students, staff, etc. to and from the school (ancillary activity to education). Such
an insurance does not cover situations wherein the bus is being utilised publicly or privately

4
All Indian Public School.
5
New State Academy.
11
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
to transport passengers to their respective destinations. Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 19886 mandates compulsory insurance coverage of motor vehicles on road. No one is
permitted to drive a motor vehicle in public without an insurance coverage. A compulsory
insurance requirement by law and the insurance coverage not being available for a situation
where school buses are being utilised publicly created a clear absurdity and clash between
statutes.

[2] The Delhi Green Tribunal’s ban on use of diesel-powered buses and trucks older
than 5 years is arbitrary since it is not required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Petitioners submit that first, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) only envisages
executive decision-making, and the NGT Act does not encapsulate the implementation of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [2.1]. Second, the NGT Act is only applicable to disputes between
two or more parties [2.2]. Third, the Delhi Green Tribunal is bound within statutory confines
and lacks suo moto jurisdiction to discharge its functions [2.3].

Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (‘NGT Act’) provides 3 essential
elements to establish the NGT’s jurisdiction- a civil case; involving a substantial question
relating to the environment; and arising out of the enactments mentioned in Schedule I. 7

[2.1] The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 only envisages executive decision-making, and the
NGT Act does not encapsulate the implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
S.59 of the MV Act provides exclusive authority to the Central Government to fix the age
limit of a motor vehicle in furtherance of public safety, convenience, and objects of the MV
Act.8 Further, S.55 of the MV Act provides the registering authority with the power to cancel
the registration of a vehicle, after providing an opportunity of rebuttal and if it is satisfied that
the vehicle constitutes a danger to the public and is beyond reasonable repair. 9 Furthermore,
the State Government is vested with the power to restrict the use of vehicles in the
furtherance of public safety under S.115 of the MV Act.10

6
Section 146, The Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
7
Section 14, National Green Tribunal Act.
8
Section 59, The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
9
Section 55, The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
10
Section 115, The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
12
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
Any directions regarding motor vehicles including inter alia fixing the age limit of certain
vehicle classes, cancellation of registration and restriction on use of vehicles must be taken
under the appropriate legislation i.e., the MV Act. The MV Act vests the power to take the
actions with the State and Central Government, and not the DGT. The third element under
S.14 of the NGT Act i.e., question arising out of the implementation of the enactments
mentioned in Schedule I, remains unsatisfied as Schedule I does not include the MV Act.
Thus, the DGT cannot issue a ban on the use of diesel-powered trucks and buses older than 5
years old under the MV Act, as the Act envisages such decision-making as an executive
function.

[2.2] The NGT Act is only applicable to ‘disputes’ between two or more parties.
An essential element under S. 14 of the NGT Act is that there must be a substantial question
relating to the environment.11 In Techi Tagi Tara, the Supreme Court construed the term
‘substantial question relating to the environment’ as a question arising out of a dispute
between two or more parties raised by a claimant, which the NGT can settle by providing
relief in form of compensation, restitution or any incidental or ancillary relief. 12 Further, the
Court held that the NGT’s function is dispute settlement, rather than restorative or preventive
in nature.13

In casu, the directions of issuing a ban on diesel trucks and buses has been issued by the DGT
in its own motion, in the absence of a dispute between two or more parties. Thus, it cannot be
said that the case involves a ‘substantial question relating to the environment’. Thus, as the
third element of S.14 remains unsatisfied, the NGT does not have jurisdiction in the present
case.

[2.3] The Delhi Green Tribunal is bound within statutory confines and lacks suo moto
jurisdiction to discharge its function.
In Rajeev Hitendra, the Supreme Court held that a Tribunal is a creature of the statute and
gains its authority and powers from express statutory provisions stipulated. 14 Thus, a
Tribunal’s powers are restricted within the statute it was created under. 15 Further, in Sterlite

11
Section 14, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
12
Techi Tagi Tara.
13
Ibid.
14
Rajeev Hitendra Pathak.
15
Standard Chartered Bank.
13
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
Industries, the Supreme Court established that the NGT as a statutory tribunal, does not have
the same powers of a writ court to such as the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 or
High Courts under Article 226 to deliver ‘complete justice’ to protect fundamental rights
under the Constitution.16 Thus, in the absence of inherent writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or
226, a Tribunal lacks the power to act on its own motion, exercise suo moto jurisdiction or
judicial review. Furthermore, a Tribunal also lacks the powers which are inherently vested
with other civil courts.17

In casu, the DGT is a Tribunal that is created under the NGT Act and thus, bound by the
powers envisaged under the NGT Act. S. 14 read with Schedule I provides the jurisdiction for
the DGT as addressing those questions arising of out implementation of the enactments in
Schedule I.18 However, the MV Act is not included under Schedule I. Thus, the DGT does not
have suo moto jurisdiction to act on its own motion. However, the DGT issued the ban on
diesel trucks and buses older 5 years suo moto on points raised in the ‘Death by Breath series.
Further, as the DGT is a statutory tribunal and not a constitutional court, it does not possess
the extensive and extraordinary powers to issue writs, issues, or directions where the law does
not provide remedy to deliver complete justice in order to safeguard fundamental rights.

Therefore, the DGT’s ban on the use of diesel-powered trucks and buses is arbitrary since it
is not required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

[3] The odd-even scheme is violative of the Constitution of India and the fundamental
rights enshrined therein.
The Petitioners submit first the odd-even scheme violates Article 14 of the Constitution [3.1].
Second, the odd-even scheme violates Article 19 of the Constitution [3.2]. Third, the odd-
even scheme violates Article 21 of the Constitution [3.3].

[3.1] The odd-even scheme violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees every individual with equality before the
law and equal protection of the law in India. 19 The Supreme Court, in Anwar Ali, established

16
Tamil Nadu Polution Control Board.
17
M/s Transcore.
18
Section 14, National Green Tribunal Act.
19
Article 14, Constitution of India, 1950.
14
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
the test for reasonable classification.20 First, the classification made must be founded on
intelligible differentia.21 Second, the classification made must have a reasonable nexus with
the objective.22 In Raj Narain, the Apex Court highlighted the importance of reasonability,
equity and adherence of natural justice principles while classifying individuals or objects. In
E.P. Royappa, the Supreme Court held that class legislation is forbidden, and a legislation
may be struck down if it is held to be as arbitrary and that no reasonable man would make
such classification.23

In casu, classifying vehicles based on their registration cannot be reasoned or justified by any
logical reasoning. Here, the odd-even scheme was introduced to reduce pollution, however,
the pollution caused by vehicles does not change based on their registration number. Further,
altering or modifying a vehicle’s number plate would not make its engine cleaner or more
efficient. Further, the classification unjustly harms certain classes of individuals such as an
individual with one car in comparison to a person who owns multiple vehicles. Furthermore,
its effects are amplified on certain classes such as those relying on personal vehicles to
commute to work, individuals with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups that are
dependent on personal vehicles. On the other hand, the scheme benefits certain classes of
individuals with more economic resources. Thus, the classification is arbitrary. Furthermore,
the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I, highlighted the ineffectiveness of the scheme
noting that pollution from vehicles contributed to 28% of aggregate pollution in Delhi with
trucks accounting for 8%; tractors for 3%; cars for 3%; two-wheelers for 7%; three-wheelers
for 5% and LCV for 1%.24 While classifying vehicles based on their types could possibly be
reasonable, classification on registration number is ineffective and arbitrary. Thus, the
scheme violates Article 14.

[3.2] The odd-even scheme violates Article 19 of the Constitution.

Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of movement, however, is subject
to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) in the interest of the general public. 25 Further,
Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the freedom to profession, occupation, trade or business,
however, is subject to the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) in furtherance of public
20
Anwar Ali Sarkar.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
E.P. Royappa.
24
M.C. Mehta.
25
Article 19(1)(d), Constitution, Article 19(5), Constitution.
15
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
interest.26 While there is no straightforward test to determine whether a restriction is
reasonable as it is dependent on factual circumstances, the Apex Court has developed general
guidelines to determine reasonability. In A.K. Gopalan, the Supreme Court held that the
restriction must not be excessive of what is required to achieve the objective of such
restriction.27 Further, the restriction must balance an individual’s fundamental rights and the
state’s concern in a proportional manner, while preventing adverse effects on fundamental
rights.28 Furthermore, the restriction must be carried out in an equitable and fair manner.
In casu, the Delhi Government has imposed an unreasonable restriction as the restriction
unfairly and inequitable outweighs the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (g),
particularly affecting certain classes of individuals. The restrictions are not proportional to
the objective of promoting public transportation with an individual’s right to movement,
occupation, and trade. First, hindering an individual’s right to movement using their personal
vehicles affects their ability to commute to work, particularly as Delhi’s public transportation
is not fully developed and is susceptible to overcrowding due to its substantial population.
Further, persons with disabilities are adversely affected as they rely on personal vehicles due
to insufficient facilities for the disabled in Delhi’s public transportation system. It also affects
other vulnerable groups such as those dependent on the transportation as their occupation or
trade, affecting their ability to carry out such obligations. There are other alternative yet less
restrictive methods of promoting public transport and reducing pollution such as the relevant
authority promoting use of certain types of vehicles under the relevant provisions of the MV
Act.

[3.3] The odd-even scheme violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees every individual the protection of life and personal
liberty.29 The right to life under Article 21 also encompasses the right to livelihood, and
depriving one’s means of livelihood violates their fundamental rights. 30 While reasonable
restrictions can be placed, it shouldn’t be such where public moral is adversely affected. 31
Furthermore, the right to life also encompasses the right to economic empowerment and
social justice, 32 including the right to security against sickness and disablement. 33
26
Article 19(1)(g), Constitution. ;Article 19(6), Constitution.
27
A.K. Gopalan.
28
Chintamanrao.
29
Article 21, Constitution.
30
Dilipkumar Raghavendranath; Olga Tellis.
31
M. J. Sivani.
32
Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar.
33
ESI Corporation.
16
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
In casu, the odd-even scheme affects the right to livelihood of individuals with one car who
must commute to work on a day-to-day basis. Further, the scheme deprives the means of
livelihood to those who depend on transportation such as taxi drivers, bus drivers, bike taxis,
among others as their ability to earn wages and consequently, gain livelihood is adversely
affected. While this may not pose a hindrance for economically advantaged and certain social
classes who aren’t affected by transportation, this scheme certainly affects the economically
weak and certain vulnerable groups in the society. Furthermore, this scheme also fails to
achieve security against disablement for disabled individuals as they rely on their personal
vehicles rather than public transportation. On a broad level, this also affects public moral and
order as it affects the general public’s right to personal liberty under the Constitution.

17
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS
 PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the Petitioners humbly requests the Hon’ble Supreme Court to declare:

1. The Delhi Government’s order for requisition of school buses for commercial use is
in violation of the basic principles and provisions of the DSEAR (Delhi School
Education Act and Rules).
2. The Delhi Green Tribunal’s ban on use of diesel-powered buses and trucks older than
5 years is arbitrary since it is not required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. The odd-even scheme is violative of the Constitution of India and the fundamental
rights enshrined therein.

In the interest of justice, any additional order or relief that is deemed appropriate and fit in
light of the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.

18
MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS