2025:UHC:4986-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA 16TH JUNE, 2025 WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 222 OF 2023 Abhimanyu Bhardwaj. …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents. : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tewari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. JUDGMENT : (per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Additional CSC for the State. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding /directing the respondents to impose restriction/ban on e-rikshaws/e-cart to be plied over the highways, main roads and the prime locations of the city. ії) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to define the rout of the e-rikshaws to be plied on the internal roads of the city, on connectivity and service roads, new developed residential localities, big colonies and on the branch routs in the interest of public at large. iii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. iv) Award the costs of the petition in favor to the petitioner.” 3. On a plain reading of the reliefs sought for, it is apparent that the mandamus/ direction sought for is in the teeth of the amendments carried out to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby amendments have permitted the introduction and plying of e-rickshaws and e-carts etc. Hence, the prayer virtually amounts to declaring the amended provisions as ultra 1 2025:UHC:4986-DB vires. The second relief is in the nature of a policy decision, and which policy ought to be in consonance with the mandate of the Statute, i.e. the Act of 1988. 4. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the instant Writ Petition could be disposed of by directing the second respondent to consider the instant Writ Petition as a representation, and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible. 5. The Writ Petition stands ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 16th June, 2025 Rahul 2 RAHUL PRAJAPATI Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66e61bf 4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A192FCA D15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2025.06.18 14:35:08 +05'30'