@BJP4India And i thought MCG means Municipal corporation of Gurgaon. In our MCG, 02 emotions come to mind. 1. is waterlogging everywhere with even 30 minutes of rain.2nd is garbage and potholes. BJP’s corruption is most glaring here. @PMOIndia@narendramodi
#gurgaonrains gurgaon after 2 hours of rains. That too in supposedly posh area of Sector 48, outside V club. Tatvam Villas behind the road command a price tag of +10 Crs. @NayabSainiBJP@DC_Gurugram
@sardesairajdeep That happened in US. If this was between India & Belgium in India, one call from Modi and Belgium team would have started playing for India. Mota bhai is always there to buy the opponents, whether on political grounds or playground.
@gonegirlisback He needs an award every month. Bharat Ratna can be one time award. Better to give him award based on hindi months like Sawan award (if rainfall is normal), or Jyestha award ( this year there were 2 months of Jyestha). Who better than IT cell to find innovative names for awards.
To the Government of India.
@PMOIndia@PIB_India@pib_law@HMOIndia@mygovindia@MLJ_GoI
Let’s talk law.
Let’s talk certification.
Let’s talk the Constitution.
Under Section 2(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Certificate of Registration is not a receipt. It is a statutory certificate issued by a competent authority. Under Section 41(7), for a private vehicle, that certificate is valid for fifteen years.
Before that certificate is issued, the vehicle model is type-approved under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules framework. Rule 126 is the general prototype-submission and certification gateway. But the emissions and fuel-testing architecture sits under Rule 115, read with the applicable AIS and BIS standards.
AIS-017 and AIS-007 show that type approval is based on manufacturer-submitted technical specifications, test reports, extension-of-approval criteria and change-control documentation. Those specifications are not cosmetic. They include engine details, type of fuel used, fuel-feed method, fuel injection, calibration, emission-control systems, OBD, evaporative-emission controls and related compliance reports.
AIS-137, which governs BS VI type approval and conformity of production under CMV Rules 115, 116 and 126, confirms that motor-vehicle approval includes exhaust emissions, idle emissions, crankcase emissions, evaporative emissions, durability of pollution-control devices, OBD and engine-power testing.
Now add the fuel standards.
IS 17021:2018 is the BIS specification for regular consumer E20 fuel. It defines E20 as an admixture of 20 percent anhydrous ethanol and 80 percent ethanol-free motor gasoline for spark-ignition engine vehicles. Its own foreword recognises that E20 use may require engine calibration, that vehicles running on E20 must have no adverse effects on fuel-system materials, emissions, OBD systems or drivability, and that OEMs need to identify vehicles capable of using E20.
IS 17943:2022 goes further. It is not the retail fuel standard. It is the E20 reference-fuel standard for type-approval and conformity-of-production testing under CMVR Rule 115. It expressly states that reference fuel has closer tolerance limits for regulatory-test consistency and is not to be treated as the commercial E20 fuel dispensed at retail outlets.
That distinction matters.
The State’s own regulatory architecture does not treat fuel as incidental. It treats fuel as a technical, emissions, safety, OBD, material-compatibility and certification parameter.
Now come to the Supreme Court.
Case A - In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that the Government is not free to defeat a representation on which a citizen has acted merely because the representation arises from executive action. The doctrine of promissory estoppel can operate against the State where justice, equity and good conscience require it, subject of course to statute and overriding public interest.
Case B - In Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that Government schemes and representations are empty policy statements incapable of legal consequence. Where a citizen acts on a representation made by the State, the Government cannot arbitrarily resile from it by invoking executive discretion.
Case C - In Navjyoti Co-op Group Housing Society v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised that even where there may be no private-law contract, a consistent governmental representation or practice can create a legitimate expectation. A sudden departure from that expectation must satisfy fairness and non-arbitrariness.
Case D - And in State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics, the Supreme Court brought this principle into its modern public-law form. When State representations are made in discharge of public functions, the question is not merely contract. It is fairness, legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel and Article 14 non-arbitrariness.
That is the legal bridge.
1. The State approves the vehicle under a defined fuel/emission compliance framework.
2. The State allows it to be sold.
3. The State collects GST, cess, registration charges and road tax.
4. The State then issues a statutory certificate valid for fifteen years. The citizen relies on that State-created framework.
We are not asking whether the State may change fuel policy. It plainly may.
The narrower question is whether a fifteen-year statutory certificate, issued after technical approval and full tax collection, can be made practically weaker by a change in a core operating condition, without the State owing any fairness, disclosure or transition obligation to the citizen who relied on that framework.
That is the real question.
Not anti-policy. Not anti-ethanol. Not anti-transition.
A question of regulatory fairness, legitimate expectation, consumer reliance and constitutional discipline.
Because the Constitution does not permit the State to convert a citizen’s reliance into collateral damage. A State governed by the Constitution cannot certify a vehicle within one fuel-emission framework, collect taxes and road charges for a fifteen-year registration period, and then disclaim all responsibility when its own policy weakens that framework midstream.
If in doubt, the four cases above are not our invention. They are the Supreme Court’s own constitutional principles — applied to a new regulatory fact pattern.
We simply leave the question on record — for the learned legal minds of this country to examine, test, and take to its logical conclusion.
— Vishal Singh Jain
Director, VSJ Ventures LTD
— Team Bharat
@FactswithDinesh@nachiket1982@ShivrattanDhil1@Nidhzee@MiniforIYC@tehseenp@vishhalsjain@bsindia@badjourno@KapilSibal@DrAMSinghvi@pbhushan1@IJaising@sanjayuvacha@MenakaGuruswamy@PiyushGoyal@nitin_gadkari@OfficeOfNG@HardeepSPuri@PriyankKharge@REDBOXINDIA@malpani@sabeer@Reuters@business@IndianExpress@FT@nytimes@adityakalra@ManishKasyapsob
Research 1 - https://t.co/fAifr83k9p
Research 2 - https://t.co/Y7fgQ0ab9Z
Research 3 - https://t.co/g9D7yiRoYf
Mughals looted us & gave us Taj Mahal, Qutub Minar, Laal Kila, etc.
Britishers looted us & gave us Railways, Civil Services, etc.
Congress looted us & gave us ISRO, IIT, AIIMS, DAMS, etc.
BJP looted us & gave us Andbhakts, Potholes, Ethanol, Hindu-Muslim, Paper Leaks, etc.
Dear friends request you personally to repost my pinned post about DAIKIN so that @daikin_jp can see how shoddy @DaikinIndia is!
Mr Kanwal Jeet Jawa should realise that selling AC is not enough-if they can't replace motherboard and it will take 20-25days,they should shut shop!