Allahabad High Court
Anand Mohan, Social ... vs The Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... on 9 March, 2007
Author: A.K. Yog
Bench: A.K. Yog
JUDGMENT A.K. Yog, J.
BACKGROUND
1. The prayer made in the application is as follows:
It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to recall its order dated 08-05-2006 directing to shift the statue of the father of the nation from tri square situated before the Bharadwaj park, Allahabad or pass such other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper without disturbing the statue from its place.
2. Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, Sr. Advocate, submitted that the prayer in the application '...to recall its order dated 08.05.2006...' be treated as prayer to review order dated 08.05.2006 passed by the Bench comprising A. K. Yog and Prakash Krishna, JJ. Consequently, Court passed order dated 31.7.2006 directing this Application to be listed before said Bench of A. K. Yog and Prakash Krishna, JJ. "at the earliest".
3. Meanwhile Applicants, filed two 'Interim Applications' in the above 'Intervention' Application.
4. Civil Misc. Application No. 263541 of 2006 was presented on 6-12-2006 and the prayer made therein is:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that since the directions issued in the instant writ petition are in conflict with the judgement and orders of the two Division benches namely judgement and order dated 15-12-2000 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9212 of 1985, Anand Mohan v. Administration of Allahabad and others and judgement and order dated 31-7-2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40443 of 2006, Sharad Chand Mishra v. State of U. P. the matter be referred to a Larger Bench and papers be laid before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for that purpose.
OR In the alternative various orders or direction issued in the writ petition be recalled/clarified except those orders or directions which have already been implemented.
5. Civil Misc. Application No. 263539 of 2006 was presented on 6-12-2006 and the prayer made is:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Misc. Application be heard either before the Civil Misc. Intervention Application No. 130413 of 2006 or alongwith that Application.
6. When above Application/s were listed before the Bench (A.K. Yog & Prakash Krishna, JJ the Court passed order dated 8-12-2006; relevant extract is reproduced:
...
When this Application No. 130413 of 2006 came up before Court (Bench comprising A. K. Yog and R.K. Rastogi, JJ) learned Counsel for the Applicant (Sri Jain) objected to the hearing of this application and submitted that this Application (since the Court was to review its earlier order dated 8-5-2006) be heard by the Bench which had passed earlier order dated 8-5-2006, i.e. A.K. Yog & Prakash Krishna, JJ.
...
Above application hence listed today before this Bench (specially constituted for PH/Tied-up cases).
One of us, Prakash Krishna, J. expressed his inability and declined to hear the case. Sri Jain, in an unusual manner, insisted upon disclosing the reason for 'declining' and also to place on the issue of 'jurisdiction'/hearing the Writ Petition by the Bench presided by A. K. Yog, J.
Undue eagerness exhibited by Sri Jain to make further submission- after one of us declined to participate on the bench, could not be appreciated and he was told that he can make his submission-when case is listed next before Court on 21.12.2006.
...
To save precious time of the Court, and eliminate doubt of any nature as well as to re-assure that case is being heard by competent Court we direct the record to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and, if deemed appropriate, to reallocate/nominate the bench, for hearing of the said application and the Writ Petition.
(underlined to lay emphasis).
7. In view of the above order, Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed following order-
If one Hon. Judge of a DB is not willing to hear a recall application then it has to be heard by the other Hon. Judge alone. Let the mater be placed before Hon. A. K. Yog alone.
Sd/-
14.12.06
8. Thus these Applications came up for hearing before the Bench of Single Judge, presided by A.K. Yog, J.
9. Applicants, replaced Sh. Ravi Kiran Jain, Sr. Advocate by engaging Sh. D.S. Mishra, Advocate, who appeared and argued the case on 12-01-2007. Sh. A.K. Mishra, Advocate (for ADA/Respondent No. 3), Sh. Ajit Kumar, Advocate (for Nagar Nigam, Allahabad/Respondent No. 14 & 15) and Learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P.-Respondent No. 6,7 8, 10, 11 & 12) appeared and opposed these application/s.
10. It will be recalled that Order dated 8-5-2006 was passed on the complaint made by Anand Mohan, the petitioner. One Arvind Srivastava, Advocate also endorse the same and brought to the notice of the Court that installation of the statue of Mahatma Gandhi on 'Balson Crossing' (in Allahabad City) was hazardous to Traffic-movement as it impeded vision of traffic coming from other sides.
11. 'Whether-Installation of statue/s on crossings/intersections of public roads/street, which jeopardises 'safety' of general public and thus in violation of 'Fundamental right to life and property' conferred under Constitution of India, can be accorded legal sanctity on the ground of "sentiments' of a few people/organisation? is the issue to be adjudicated by this Court-while considering the present Application.
CASE OF THE APPLICANTS:
12. The applicants, claim to be 'political'/social-organisation/s (not political parties) as stated in their application and proclaim to follow 'ideologies' of 'Father of Nation and claim to espouse social cause for benefit of society in general.
13. One Ashok Kumar Gupta, as Convenor of 'Gandhi Vichar Andolan Manch', filed an Application-in July, 2003 before Nagar Nigam, Allahabad to grant permission to install 'statute' on BALSON Crossing- in City of Allahabad; Nagar Nigam referred the matter to ADA (Allahabad Development Authority) in January, 2004; Deputy Secretary (Parks) ADA granted permission on 3.8.2004 for installing statue-alleging 5'-7", (Annexure 5 to the Application); foundation stone placed on 30-1-2005 (Annexure 6 to the Application); the statue installed in February, 2006; statue unveiled on on 12-03-2006, which does not impede/obstruct 'vision' and does not obstruct/hinder traffic- movement; site-inspection may be carried out by the Court to find out whether statue is a hazard to traffic; no accident has taken place on that spot to the best of the knowledge of Ashok Gupta (without disclosing the basis for making alleged statement on personal knowledge or obtaining opinion of people in the vicinity); ADA/Nagar Nigam did not object to the installation of the statue; 'foundation-stone' of the statue was installed even before present PIL was filed; this Court erred in accepting a 'casual statement', made by one Sri Arvind Srivastava (Advocate); shifting of the statue shall hurt the feelings of the public; a signature-campaign and 'Andolan' undertaken to express feelings/sentiments of public and to support their prayer to recall order dated 8-5-2006.; (see para 13 to 22 of the Application).
CASE OF A.D.A.:
14. On behalf of ADA, its Secretary-Sri Murlidhar Dubey, has filed counter affidavit. For convenience relevant para 5 to 10 of the said counter affidavit, which are self explanatory are reproduced:
5. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 11 of the application, it is stated that since the alleged All India Gandhi Vichar Andolan Manch is not a registered organization, Sri Ashok Gupta its alleged convenor has no locus to intervene on behalf of the alleged Manch.
6. That in reply to the contents of paragraph nos 12 to 16 of the application, it is stated that the respect to be given to the father of the Nation is upper most enough highest priority for the Allahabad Development Authority. The order of the Hon'ble High Court was also passed so as to ensure that the respect to the statue of the father of the Nation be appropriately given. The intent of the Hon'ble High Court's order was only to ensure free flow of traffic and restoration of dignity and respect to the statue of the father of the Nation. The statue of the father of the Nation is proposed to be installed just in front of the University of Allahabad so that the Central University and a large number of students may draw inspiration from the deels and preaching's of the father of the Nation and be a source of guidance to the Nation's youth.
7. That the contents of paragraph No. 17 of the application is incorrect. The triangular Park wherein the statue is presently installed is at a place from where the vision available to traffic is severely hampered.
8. that the contents of paragraph No. 18 of the application, it is stated that the reverence and respect to the father of the Nation is to well known and acknowledged. There is no objection to installing of statue of the father of the Nation. The question is confined to the installation being made at appropriate place, so that its in keeping with the dignity, respect and reverence to the father of the nation. The intention of the Hon'ble High Court's order and the authorities is only to restore the reverence and respect to its appropriate place.
9. That the contents of paragraph No. 21 to 32 of the application are incorrect in the manner stated as such are denied. It was only after the statue was installed, and with passage of time, that in appropriateness of the place for installation of statue was realized by members of public and statement of Sri Arvind Srivsatava, Advocate was only reflective of it. The grievance urged by the applicants are utterly misconceived and unfounded inasmuch as the order of Hon'ble High Court by no stretch of imagination could be taken as a gesture of disrespect to the father of the Nation. The anxiety of the Hon'ble High Court was only to ensure that the location for the statue be befitting to the stature of the father of the Nation and it should not be continued at a place which creates inconvenience to the free movement of traffic and does not bet the attention to which it deserves.
10. That the filing of the application appears to be with some oblique reasons as the orders passed in the present P.I.L Petition have been widely appreciated by all sections of the society and public authorities have been persuaded to act strictly as per law and be responsive to the public needs. The applicant is trying to make out an issue, out of nothing. so as to some how interfere with the continuance of proceedings in the instant PIL writ petition.
(underlined by Court to lay emphasis)
15. The applicants have filed Rejoinder affidavit (sworn by Sh. Ballabh) primarily reiterating averments in the Application.
16. A.D.A., on the direction of Court, placed 'Original record for perusal and relevant facts/order/s borne out from the pleadings of the parties and 'original-record' are given hereunder in chronological order.
(i) (a) 3-8-2004: Letter of A DA- to Ashok Kumar Gupta (Convenor-informing grant of permission valid up to 3-07-2005 i.e. For 11 months only (Annexure 5 to the Application).
(b) 3-8-2004: Terms and Conditions' of Permission-to install statue executed and signed on Stamp paper jointly by Ashok Kumar Gupta on behalf of applicant No. 1 & ADA:
Hkkj}kt ikdZ ds lkeus frdksuk ikdZ ds j[kj[kko@lkSUn;hZdj.k ,oa fodkl dk;Z rFkk egkRek xka/kh th dh izfrek Lfkkfir fd;s tkus gsrq 'krZ 2004&2005 bykgkckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds v/khuLFk Hkkj}kt ikdZ ds lkeus fLFkr frdksuk ikdZ ftls izFke i{k dgk x;k ds j[kj[kko@lkSUn;hZdj.k ,oa fodkl rFkk xka/kh th dh izfrek LFkkfir fd;s tkus gsrq Jh v'kksd dqekj xqIrk] vf[ky Hkkjrh; vkUnksyu eap 1307] ;'koUr uxj 'kSy dkyksuh pSEcj eqEcbZ ftls f}rh; i{k dgk x;k ds i{k es 11 ekg ds fy, fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ij l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk Lohd`fr iznku dh x;h gSA 1& ;g fd mDr ikdZ dk iw.kZ LokfeRo fodkl izkf/kdj.k dk gksxkA 2& ;g fd mDr ikdZ esa fdlh izdkj dk fuekZ.k dk;Z ugha fd;k tk;sxkA 3& ;g fd mDr ikdZ esa laLFkk viuk fMLIys cksMZ yxk;sxh] ftldh Hkk"kk] LFky] dyj Ldhe fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk iwoZ esa vuqeksnuksijkUr yxk;h tk;sxhA 4& &&&&&&&&&& 5& ;g fd mDr ikdZ dk j[kj[kko dk dk;Z mDr desVh }kjk Bhd izdkj ls ugha fd;k tkrk gS rFkk fdlh vU; rjg ls mDr ikdZ dk bLrseky djus ij mDr vkoaVu fujLr djus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj lfpo@mik/;{k fodkl izkf/kdj.k dk gksxk rFkk bl izdj.k ij mDr desVh@laLFkk dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gksxkA 6& ;g fd mDr ikdksZ esa fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj gh fodkl dk;Z laLFkk }kjk fd;k tk;sxk rFkk fodkl dk;Z gsrq ;kstuk izkf/kdj.k ls Lohd`fr djkdj gh fodkl dk dk;Z fd;k tk;sxk rFkk mDr ikdZ esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ O;kolkf;d n`f"V ls laLFkk dksbZ dk;Z ugha djsxh] ftlls izkf/kdj.k dks dksbZ gks vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa dzekad&5 ij vafdr 'krZ ykxw djus ij laLFkk dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gksxhA 7& &&&&&&&&&&& 8 &&&&&&&&&&& 9& ;g fd mDr desVh dks dksbZ fgr vf/kdkj ;k LoRo mDr ikdZ LFky ij mRiUu ugha gksxk] ftldh og j[kj[kko o ns[kHkky djsxh] dsoy laLFkk dks mDr iz;kstu gsrq vius deZpkjh dks vkus tkus o ns[kHkky lacaf/kr fdz;k dykiksa dh gh vuqefr gksxhA deZpkjh dks vkus tkus o ns[kHkky lacaf/kr fdz;kdykiksa dh gh vuqefr gksxhA 10& ;g fd bl foys[k }kjk iznku fd;s x;s ykblsUl ds Hkax dj fn;s tkus dh n'k esa dksbZ izfrdj mDr desVh }kjk j[kj[kko ij fd;s x;s [kpZ ds fy, izkf/kdj.k }kjk izfrdj ns; ugha gksxkA 11& &&&&&&&&& 12& ;g fd fdlh Hkh fookn dh n'kk esa mik/;{k fodkl izkf/kdj.k dk fu.kZ; vfUre gksxkA 13& ;g fd mDr ikdZ d ykblsUl dh vof/k 11 ekg fnukad 3&8&2004 ls 3&7&05 rd ds fy, gh ykxw jgsxk vkSj bl vof/k ds mijkUr ;fn izkf/kdj.k mDr ikdZ dks lkSUn;hZdj.k@j[kj[kko ,oa fodkl dk;Z gsrq le;ko`f) fd;k tkrk gS rks i{kdkj dks iqu% vuqcU/k lEikfnr djkdj gh dk;Z djsxhA ;fn vuqcU/k ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks ,slh n'kk esa izkf/kdj.k bu ikdZ dks vius deZpkfj;ksa ds }kjk j[kj[kko djsxh blesa mDr laLFkk dks fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ vkifRr ugha gksxkA 14& &&&&&&&&&&& g0 v'kksd dqekj xqIrk 3-8-04 la;kstd v0Hkk0xkW0fo0vk0eap g% vLi"B 637 efV;kjk jksM bykgkckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k vYykiqj bykgkckn** bykgkckn
(ii) 15-03-2005: Relevant extract of the Court order in the Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2005 (Anand Mohan v. Union of India and Ors.), is reproduced-
...
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we direct; as an interim measure, subject to further orders in future no statue or structure shall be fixed on road crossings/junctions in the City of Allahabad. Installation of statute/structure over public places, on or near public road or side ways, shall require prior sanction, of both the Town Planner as well as Chief Traffic Controller and its violation shall be treated as 'Public offence' apart from imposition of fine of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the DM. concerned and recoverable as Land Revenue from the person/party responsible.
(underlined by Court to lay emphasis)
(iii) 1-07-2005: Judgement and order passed in Writ Petition No. 3799 (M/B) of 2005 in the case of Sanjay Gupta v. The District Magistrate. Lucknow and Ors. Lucknow Bench-
...
As far as installation of statue on the road crossings is concerned, learned Advocate General has placed before us Photostat copy of Page Nos 20, 21, 22 and 218 of Traffic Engineer and Transport Planning. Relevant para reads:
11.10.5. Visibility at intersections 11.10.5.1. The safety of traffic can be ensured only if the visibility is full and unimpeded along both roads. Any obstructions should be clear of the minimum visibility triangle for a height of 1.2 meters above the roadway.
It is submitted that above is only recommendatory with no statutory force and serves as guideline. Accordingly to him, there are no statutory rules regarding installation of statues on road crossings/junctions. We reserve our finding on 'existence of rules' in this respect. Let Chief Town Planner and Chief Traffic Authority file an affidavit to that effect. Section 55, U.P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, referred to by respondents counsel, does not permit installing of statutes or their maintenance on road crossings.
In case no statutory rules exist, we direct the State Government including the respondents to frame statutory rules, at the earliest. Road and road traffic has to be given first priority as it concerns the safety of the public at large. We may add that any rules, which are framed, must have prior approval of the Chief Town Planner, the Chief Traffic Controlling authority and National Highway Authority and such rules must ensure that roads/road land is preserved and protected ensuring smooth-traffic and nothing is placed on it which impedes vision- as contemplated in aforequoted para 11.10.5.1.
The learned Advocate General, suggests that a committee be constituted in order to cut short the procedural hassles and speedy decisions.
The Court has no objection to the same. Let State Government constitute a committee to frame statutory rules, taking into consideration standard norms of traffic in all respects-including fixing/installing statutes, post (temporary or permanent), fixtures, banners, speed breakers on roads/road crossings. The said committee shall, however, include, apart from the members nominated by the State government, an expert person nominated by the National Highway Authority and Railway Board/R.D.S.O., Lucknow also. Rules in this context must be framed within four months from the date of receipt of this order with prior approval of Chief Town Planner and Chief Traffic Officer of U.P. Considering the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and the interest of the public at large, we direct that no structure on the road, road junctions and roadside land, crossings which impedes vision or hampers traffic movement or otherwise hazardous and nuisance shall not be placed or installed meanwhile and aforesaid recommendations are respected.
...
(underlined by Court to lay emphasis)
(iv) 11-07-2005: relevant extract of Court order in the Writ Petition passed by A.K. Yog and Hon'ble B.B. Agarwal, JJ reads-
...
Sri Aanand Mohan informs that officers who have taken steps to arrest and/or file complaints/F.I.R. and had brought to the notice of the Court, viz. A.D.A. Chief Town Planner's imposing restrictions of anything being placed above three feet of the road level have been transferred or under threat of transfer. We are informed that A.D.A, Chief Town Planner, has already been transferred. Sri Girish Kumar Ojha, Sahayak Nagar Ayukt, who has lodged F.I.R. In pursuance to the Court's orders is also shortly going to be transferred. In that situation the Court hopes that there shall be no victimization in the name of transfer of the officers, who complied with the Court order....
(v) 09-09-2005: Application of Sh. A.K. Gupta seeking extension of time to install statue.
laj{kd la;kstd
rq"kkj xka/kh v'kksd dqekj xqIr
fnukad 9&9&2005
lsok esa]
izHkkjh vf/kdkjh m|kku
bykgkckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k
bykgkckn
egksn;
d`i;k Lodh; i= la0 109@m|kku fo0 izk0@05 fnukad 2&9&05 dk lUnHkZ ysus dk d"V djs ftlds vuqdze esa mYys[k djuk gS fd Hkkj}kt ikdZ ds lkeus frdkuks ikdZ dh lkSUn;hZdj.k fd;s tkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gSA mi;qZDr ds lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd Hkkj}kt ikdZ ds lkeus frdksuk ikdZ esa egkRek xka/kh dh izfrek LFkkfir djus ,oa ikdZ ds j[kj[kko gsrq v0Hkk0 xka/kh fopkj vkUnksyu eap ds i{k esa fnukad 3&7&05 rd ds fy, vkoafVr fd;k x;k gS vkoaVu vof/k ds nkSjku iz'uxr ikdZ esa feV~Vh Mkyk x;k rFkk ewfrZ LFkkfir LFky ij QkmUMs'ku dk dk;Z fd;k x;kA feV~Vh cSBus ds bUrtkj esa vc rd dk;Z :dk gqvk FkkA vc feV~Vh yxHkx cSB pqdh gSA esjs }kjk ikdZ esa isM+ ikS/kksa dh jksikbZ] ?kkl dVkbZ rFkk lkQ lQkbZ ds lkFk&lkFk vU; dk;Z djk fn;s x;s gSa tks cpk dk;Z gS og vDVwcj rd iwjk dj fy;k tk;sxkA jk"V~zfirk egkRek xka/kh dh izfrek ds vukoj.k gsrq 30 tuojh 06 frfFk Hkh fu;r dh x;h gSA vr% Jheku~ th ls vuqjks/k gS fd iz'uxr ikdZ ds le;ko`f) djus dk d"V djsA vkHkkj lfgr v'kksd dqekj xqIrk
(vi) 21-12-2005: Letter of In-charge (Park) Allahabad Development Authority Allahabad to Sri A.K. Gupta for extension of time reproduced-.
bykgkckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k bykgkckn vuqLekjd@vfUre i= izs"kd] izHkkjh vf/kdkjh m|ku bykgkckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k bykgkckn lsok esa Jh v'kksd dqekj xqIrk la;kstd vf[ky Hkkjrh; xka/kh fopkj vkUnksyu eap 637 efV;kjk jksM vYykiqj] bykgkckn i=kad 176@m|ku@fo0izk0@2003 fnukad fnlEcj 21] 2005 fo"k;& j[kj[kko gsrq lkSis x;s ikdZ dh le;ko`f) gsrq lgefr i= izLrqr djus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;
mi;qZDr fo"k;d bl dk;kZy; ds i= la0 109@m|ku@fo0izk0@2005 fnukad 2&9&2005 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa ftlds }kjk Hkkj}kt ikdZ ds lkeus frdksuk ikdZ dk j[kj[kko@lkSUn;hZdj.k ,oa fodkl dk;Z gsrq vkids i{k esa 11 ekg fnukad 3&7&05 rd ds fy, vkoafVr fd;k x;k gS ftldk le; lekIr gks pqdk gSA le;ko`f) gsrq i= izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS ijUrq vki }kjk vkt rd lgefr i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% ;fn mDr ikdZ dk fodkl ,oa lkSUn;hZdj.k dk dk;Z vki }kjk vkxs Hkh fd;k tkuk gS rks viuh fyf[kr lgefr i= ,d lIrkg ds vUnj v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; dks miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsa rkfd le;ko`f) ij fopkj fd;k tk ldsA Hkonh;
Sd/ ,e0,u0 prqosZnh izHkkjh vf/kdkjh m|ku bykgkckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k bykgkckn
(vii) Feb., 2006: Statue installed.
(viii) 12-03-2006: Statue unveiled
(ix) 28-03-2006: Letter of Nagar Ayukta Nagar Nigam to ADA, Allahabad complaining violation of High Court Order.
^^uxj fuxe bykgkckn izs"kd uxj vk;qDr uxj fuxe bykgkckn lsok esa mik/;{k bykgkckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k bykgkcknA i= la0 90@u0vk0@tudk;Z@06 fnukad ekpZ 28] 2006 fo"k;% ckylu pkSjkgs ds ikl ikdZ esa jk"V~zfirk egkRek xka/kh dh izfrek LFkkfir fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] tufgr ;kfpdk la[;k 2547@05 vkuUn eksgu cuke ;wfu;u vkQ bafM;k o vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k dk mYya?ku djrs gq, ckylu pkSjkgs ds ikl fLFkr ikdZ esa jk"V~zfirk egkRek xka/kh dh izfrek LFkkfir dh x;h gSA 'kklu ds funs'kkuqlkj uxj ds ikdksZ dk j[kj[kko vkids Lrj ls fd;k tk jgk gSA vr% vuqjks/k gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dk mYya?ku fd, tkus ds dze esa rRdky dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djkus dk d"V djsa rFkk d`r dk;Zokgh ls bl dk;kZy; dks Hkh voxr djkus dh d`ik djsaA Hkonh;
g0 28&3&06 x;k izlkn uxj vk;qDr
(x) 08-05-2006: Relevant extract of Court order (Re: shifting of statue) in the Writ Petition reads:
(1) Re: Parks in the City of Allahabad ...
(i) Sri Anand Mohan pointed out that a statue of the 'Father of Nation' has been installed on the 'Balsan Crossing'. Sri Arvind Srivastava Advocate submits that it impairs traffic vision and it can be Installed inside adjoining park. This statue is installed in violation of the High Court order restraining Government/local Administration to install statue on road crossings- which is in breach of standard traffic norms and deprecated by Town Planner in the past.
In the fitness of things we direct local administration particularly District Magistrate to get it re-installed at proper place, if possible on the site suggested above.
This work must be done before the next date fixed i.e. 22.5.2006.
(xi) 23-05-2006: Order passed in Writ Petition Re: Shifting of Statue of Mahatma Gandhi-
...
2(b) Shifting of statute of Mahatma Gandhi on road junction near Balson crossing.
Sri Ajeet Kumar and the District Magistrate informs that work is in progress and the same shall be accomplished shortly-and in any case before 10-7-2006, i.e, before next date fixed in the case.
(xii) 02-06-2006: Letter of Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam to Ashok Kumar Gupta.
izs"kd uxj vk;qDr uxj fuxe bykgkckn lsok esa Jh v'kksd dqekj xqIr la;kstd vf[ky Hkkjrh; xka/kh fopkj vkUnksyu eap 637 efV;kjk jksM] vYykiqj bykgkckn i=kad 1271@u0vk0&ih0,l0@2006 fnukad 2&6&2006 fo"k; jk"V~zfirk egkRek xka/kh dh izfrek ds ikdZ ds lkSUn;hZdj.k ,oa j[kj[kko ds lEcU/k esa egksn;
mi;qZDr fo"k;d vius i= fnukad 26&5&2006 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djsA mDr ds lEcU/k esa vkils vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd vf[ky Hkkjrh; xka/kh fopkj vkUnksyu eap dks jk"V~zfirk egkRek xka/kh dh izfrek yxkus ds fy;s ,oa j[kj[kko gsrq Hkkj}kt ikdZ ds lkeus frdksus ikdZ ds fy;s tks vuqefr bykgkckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk nh xbZ gS mls Lo;a miyC/k djkus gsrq Lo;a fnukad 5&6&2006 dks izkr% 11&00 cts v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; d{k esa mifLFkr dk d"V djsaA Hkonh;
Sd/ 1-6-06 x;k izlkn uxj vk;qDr
(xiii) 14-07-2006: Court order in the Writ Petition requiring report from Town Planner, CO. Traffic (Allahabad).
3. Shifting of statute of Mahatma Gandhi from liaison Crossing to a proper and better place (between Anand Bhawan and university of Allahabad), (Re: Civil Misc. Intervention Application No. 130413 of 2006, on behalf of Socialist Front Allahabad and 2 others).
Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.K. Rai, Advocate, appearing on behalf of applicants submits that Sri S. N. Verma, Senior Advocate be allowed to represent the Applicants and heard in the matter and since he is not available today, this application be taken up on the next date. We order accordingly.
Sri Anand Mohan states that he has not received copy of the Intervention Application. Office is directed to give copy of the aforesaid application within 2 hours without charges. It is further directed that Registry shall make available (without charges) copy of the order relating to the issue, if any required by the applicant and copy of the Writ Petition, if so demanded within 2 days of the request being made in this respect.
Meanwhile, Shri Anand Mohan may file his objections, if any, against above Application before 31.7.2006. The town planner, A.D.A- Mr. Ganguli (present in Court) and C.O. Traffic, Allahabad shall submit their report-with reference to 'norms of installation of statute/banner/hoarding on road.
(xiv) 31-07-2006: Joint Report-signed by Chief Town Planner (ADA) and C.O. Traffic) Allahabad- Annexure 4 to the Affidavit of compliance (sworn by M.N. Chaturvedi, I/C Secretary, ADA)-filed through Sh. A. K. Mishra, Advocate.
Shifting of Statue of Mahatma Gandhi From liaison crossing to a proper and better place (between Anand Bhawan and University of Allahabad).
Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 14-07-2006 has asked for a report from Town Planner ADA and C.O. Traffic, Allahabad with reference to norms of installation of statue'/banner/hoardings on road.
A policy on road side advertisements, published by the Indian Road Congress (IRC:46-1972) suggests in page 2 and 3 on the principles of advertisement control and states that in general, advertisements should not be permitted:
(i) At or within 100 m of any road junction, bridge or another crossing. In Urban areas, this distance may be reduced to 50 m.
(ii) In such manner and at such places as to obstruct or interfere with the visibility of approaching, merging, intersecting traffic.
(iii)Within 10m of the edge of carriageway.
(iv) Within 50 m along the road, of any sign board erected for the regulation of traffic.
(v) In such a form as will obstruct or will hinder interpretation of any sign signal or other device erected for traffic control.
(vi) In such form as well obstruct the path of pedestrians and hinder their visibility at crossings.
(vii) Within right of way of the road.
(viii) When these will affect local amenity.
Apart from the above para 3.1.2 describes illuminated advertisements which are-objectionable from the angle of traffic safely and should not be allowed ( Annex-1) As for as installation of statues on the road crossings is concerned, Traffic and Traffic control Devices of Indian Road Congress while discussing on the aspect of visibility at intersections states that the safety of traffic can be ensured only if the visibility is full and" unimpeded along the intersecting roads. To avoid collisions sufficient sight distance should be available along (he intersecting arm,) and their included corners the minimum visibility triangles should be clear of any obstruction upto a height of 1.2. meters above the road way (page 111) Annexure-II In the writ petition No. 3799 (M/B) of 2005 Sanjay Gupta v. District Magistrate, Lucknow and Ors. Hon'ble High Court at Lucknow Bench in its judgement dated 01.07-2005 directed that no structure on the road, road junctions and road land crossings which impedes vision or hampers traffic environment or otherwise hazardous and nuisance shall not be placed or installed (Annexure III).
In the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Civil Misc. (PIL) writ petition No. 54536 of 2004 Vivek Srivastava v. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others the Divisional Town Planner. Allahabad submitted his technical opinion on construction of statue on rotary and height of railing etc. wherein he also suggested that visibility height of any rotary and its structures should not he more than 1.2. meters iron] the road/ground level (Annexure -IV).
In Civil Misc. letter (PIL) Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2005. Anand Mohan v. The Union of India and Ors. Hon'ble High Court in its judgement dated 15-03-2005 (directed as an interim measure, subject to further orders in future no statue or structure shall be fixed on road crossings/junctions in the city of Allahabad (Annexure-V).
Apart from the above for further guidelines and statue on traffic engineering and safety measure a central Govt. organization, Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi may be asked to submit its report, if the need arises.
Sd/ Sd/ Sanjay K. Yadav Swaraj Ganguly CO. Traffic Town Planner Allahabad ADA, Allahabad. (underlined by Court to lay emphasis)
17. The original record of ADA contains a map on scale (reported by Town-Planner-ADA)-according to it the relevant dimensions are as follows:
Dimension of Triangular Island Hashimpur Rd. University Rd. J. L.N.Rd.
59' x-0" X 71'-0" X 42'-1
Height of Triangular Island
from Road level- 3'-0"+(Height of Railing 3'-9"= 6'-9")
Height of Pedestal above Island level- 7-1" (width 15'-6")
Height of statue 5'-9"
____________
total 15'-10
____________
ARGUMENTS
18. Sri D.S. Mishra, Advocate, representing Applicants referred to the map of the site prepared at their instance by an Engineer, R.K. Pandey (Annexure 7 to the application). He could not dispute that said map is not on scale, it does not depict several relevant dimension/s, viz. height of the triangular-island (in question) above the road-level, height of Platform, height of Foundation stone, and height of the statue. This map is irrelevant as it does not help one to appreciate the site on spot for present purposes. No reliance can be placed on such a map. while deciding the issue in hand.
19. Learned Counsel representing the Applicants laid stress upon Geographical topography of the city without elaborating as to how, the same helps the case of the Applicants. The learned Counsel, however, fairly conceded that 'whatever impedes vision should be removed'. Applicants, however, contend without basis, that the statue does not impede vision or hampers movement of traffic.
20. He referred to other 'statues' existing in City (orally-without pleading in Application) which are in violation of 'Norms' of Indian Roads Congress; that the Court has not ordered those statues, to be removed. According to him, the court should call upon the administration to remove such other statues also. Applicants thus attempt to seek parity on the basis of a 'Wrong' act. The applicants fail to appreciate that those statues were installed prior to court orders in Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2005 (PIL). Also that those statues were installed when there was no traffic problem; population was thin, Auto mobiles were far too less. Statue/s have failed to inspire people (particularly young generation) to emulate preachings of those Great men. The result is otherwise. Statutes/hoardings on road cause "Traffic -hazard" and nuisance. The argument that statue of Mahatma Gandhi is less in. height than the 'height of other statues' 'installed on road and road crossings' elsewhere in the city-(including two statues in the vicinity of the site in question) is inspired out of misconceived-concept of 'Parity' and therefore, deserves to be rejected as having no force.
21. This submission is preposterous for more than one reason. Firstly, it is an argument in the negative. No parity can be claimed or sustained on the basis of an 'illegal' or 'wrong' act or omission. Further those statue/s were installed in the city in the past, when Roads were not as busy as now. There was no Traffic crisis. Number of two wheeler, three wheeler, four wheeler, Heavy vehicles (with growing population) has increased manifold, Crowd on road-at present was unimaginable in old days-when those statues were installed. Road are accident prone. Safety-measures on are to be strictly followed-which require removal of everything which obstructs or impedes vision and hazard to the traffic. To illustrate the point, it may Be noted that no one thought of Helmet/seat belt -a fifty year ago.
22. Moreover, installation of statue/s-has not produced positive results. The experience shows that society has drifted far from ideals of 'Great men'-like Mahatma Gandhi and other Great-men instead of deriving inspiration. Nothing can be permitted on roads which distract/disturb concentration of commuters on roads.
23. Undisputedly statue in question is 5'-7" -para 16 of the Application (according to the Town Planner, ADA 5'-9"). It is installed l0'-l" above road level on super structure (pedestal and foundation station-measuring l0'-1'-above rood level) with a statue 5'-9" show that it is against 'safety' I NORMS prescribed by 'Expert' body like Indian Road Congress-and traffic Engineering Manual. According to 'standard Norms' quoted above such structure/fixtures are hazardous as they impede vision of the people moving on roads in question which is direct violation of right to life of citizen moving on roads. It is illegal and cannot be approved.
24. The Indian Road Congress-an Expert Body of National level emphasises that any structure/statue or fixtures on intersections of road/s above 1.2 meters height of road level, impedes vision and hazardous for traffic movement (Reference may be made to the contents of para 7 of the counter affidavit of the ADA quoted above).
25. 'Norms' laid by Indian Roads Congress in the booklet titled 'A POLICY ON ROADSIDE ADVERTISEMENTS', 1992 (First Revision) published by THE INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS, Jamnagar House, Sahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011, are reproduced:
A POLICY ON ROADSIDE ADVERTISEMENTS
1. INTRODUCTION Lack of control on hoardings or display of advertisement panels (including wall panels on roadside structures) leads not only to creation of traffic hazards but often also causes serious detriment to local amenity and the general aesthetic characteristics of a neighbourhood.
1.2 At present the desired measure of control is either not exercised or is only partly exercised.
1.3 Advertisements can often effectively distract the attention of drivers of motor vehicles and in that case are a public-hazard or nuisance. They may also obstruct the view of the drivers of fast moving vehicles and are then a public danger.
1.4. When they become an eyesore or otherwise are an "injury to amenity", they interfere with public rights and can be logically prohibited on that ground.
1.5 As such, control of roadside Advertisements is justified on the multiple grounds of protecting public investment in highways, ensuring safety of the road users and preserving local amenity. In addition to enforcement, it is desirable that there should be a voluntary acceptance of this principle.
1.6 This standard was originally prepared by the Specifications and Standards Committee and published in 1953. partly for conversion into metric system, and partly for making other changes in the light of comments received from different agencies such as the State Public Works Departments, Municipalities, Institutive of Town Planners and Indian Standards Institution, a review of the Policy was taken up by the Committee at its meetings held in 1966 and 1967. Later on, the Policy was revised in the light of the discussions at a number of meetings of the committee and the final draft was approved by them in their meeting held on the 29th and 30th September, 1972 and the Executive Committee approved it in the meeting held on 25th November, 1972. later on, it was finally approved by the Council in the 79th meeting held at Gandhinagar. on the same date. This revised standard takes into account the different foreign Practices.
3. PRINCIPLES OF ADVERTISEMENT CONTROL 3.1 What may be considered as Objectionable 3.1.1 In general, Advertisements should not be permitted:
(1) at or within 100 m of any road junction, bridge or another crossing. In urban areas, this distance may be reduced to 50 in, provided there is no conflict with the requirements stated further on;
Note:-The safe stopping distance for a vehicle travelling at a speed of 50 km/hr. Is 60 m. this should be the "uninfluenced distance" for a driver approaching a junction. Assuming that 3 seconds is the time during which the influence of an advertisement board persists, the distance travelled in this time will be about 40 m. The sign should, therefore, be more than 100 m away from the junction, Hence 100 m is suggested.
(2) in such manner and at such places as to obstruct or interfere with the visibility of approaching, merging or intersecting traffic;
(3)...
(4) within 50 m along the road, of any sign board erected for the regulation of traffic under the orders of a Public Authority such as a Traffic Authority, a Public Transport Authority, or a Local Authority;
(5) in such a form as will obscure or hinder interpretation of any sign, signal or other device erected for traffic control by the Public Authorities. For instance, the Advertisements should not imitate or resemble, in colour or shape, the standard legal traffic signs, or employ such words as "STOP" in the same manner as used on traffic signs;
(6) on boards, placards, cloth banners or sheets hung across a road as they distract the attention of the driver and are, therefore, hazardous;
(7) in such form as will obstruct the path of pedestrians and hinder their visibility at crossings;
(8) within right-of-way of the road;
(9) when these will affect local amenity.
3.1.2. Illuminated Advertisements of the following description are objectionable from the angle of traffic safety and should not be allowed;
(a) advertisements which contain, include or are illuminated by any flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights except those giving public service information such as time, temperature, weather or date;
(b) illuminated Advertisements of such intensity or brilliance as to cause glare or impair vision of the driver or pedestrians, or which otherwise interfere with any operations of driving.
(c) advertisements illuminated in such a way as to obscure or diminish effectiveness of any official traffic sign, device or signal.
(underlined by Court to lay emphasis)
26. Traffic Engineer and Transport Planning-Code/Manual-provides:
11.10.5. Visibility at intersections 11.10.5.1. The safety of traffic can be ensured only if the visibility is full and unimpeded alone both roads. Any obstructions should be clear of the minimum visibility triangle for a height of 1,2 meters above the roadway.
27. Referred in Lucknow Bench Judgement and order dated 1-7-2005-quoted above).
28. Joint report of Chief Town Planner and CO. Traffic dated 31-7-2006 Traffic Engineer and Transport Planning, Manual-available with P.W.D. U.P. Lucknow quoted in Lucknow Bench Judgement and order dated 1-07-2005 are in conformity with the 'Norms'/Standards prescribed by Indian Road Congress.
29. On 14-07-2006, itself this Court, called for report of the Town Planner (ADA) and CO. (Traffic), Allahabad. Joint report of these authorities (quoted above) which highlighted the 'Norms/standards' as safety measures prescribed by Indian Road Congress for installation of statue/fixtures on road and road -crossings and endorsed that to avoid accidents and to secure safety of body, life and property of people on road standards/norms prescribed by Indian Road Congress have to be
30. The other argument is that it was decided to install 'statue' at the Present site which is most appropriate place because Mahatma Gandhi Used stay in Anand Bhawan and on several occasions passed through this route. This ground also has no force as will be seen hereinafter.
31. It is to be noted that before Court passed order dated 8.5.2006 the D.M., S.S.P., V.C. (ADA),Town planner (ADA), Nagar Nigam Officials. including its Chief Engineer), the then C.O. (Traffic) were directed to inspect the site and ascertain correct position 'whether the statue obstructs the vision of the Traffic'. The authorities, without reservation, informed that statue impedes vision and deserve to be shifted.
32. DM/SSP of Local Administration/ADA suggested equally good and suitable (if not better) alternative site-on other side Near Anand Bhawan itself-and as close to it as the present site. ADA has, already deploped the said alternative site (by spending several lacs)- which is appropriate and befitting to the stature of father of Nation. Applicants, have not been able to place or argue that 'alternative site is' not suitable for the purpose of re-installation of statue in question. There is not a whisper that alternative -site is not suitable/appropriate. It is not stated that Mahatma Gandhi did not pass through route between Anand Bhawan (University and Prayag Station-i.e. alternative site).
33. Further, no one objected while ADA developed the site. Applicant also did not approach the Court promptly and instead indulged in 'Andolan' and signature complaining.
34. The applicants heavily rely upon-'Emotions'/'Sentiments' which is wholly irrelevant and out of place in 'Rule of Law'. Flea of 'Sentiments' and 'Emotions' to perpetuate illegal act cannot be justified. Issue like 'Safety' on Road-concerning 'right to life' (a fundamental right of a citizen) has to be respected and decided by courts dispassionately in accordance with law and not on the basis of 'Andolan' or 'signature campaign.
35. In an issue concerning 'safety of people cannot be compromised, decided or ignored on whims sacrificing right of lacs and lacs of people using these roads. 'Emotions', 'Sentiments', 'Whims', 'Personal views' have no place in 'RULE OF LAW-LOGIC has to prevail. Advocate/Sr. Advocate and Judges (present or former), are looked upon as forerunners of 'Rule of Law' and not the leg-pullers but this must reflect from their conduct as well.
36. It is amazing as to how an organisation, which claims to comprise of Professors of University, Former Judge, Senior Advocate and Advocate of High, Court can proclaim to enlighten the society or secure civic rights to the people (see Annexure 2 to the Application) by pursuing a 'cause' against 'safety of people' by pursuing present Application.
37. There is no pleading that Hon'ble Judge/s or Sh. Tushar Gandhi-approved of installation of statue- knowing that it is 'dangerous' and hazardous to traffic as per Indian Road Congress and Traffic Planning Manual.
38. The most important aspect of the case has been (in all probability deliberately)- ignored by the applicants. The Applicants have no statutorily enforceable right to maintain/install statues or anything on public roads, which is hazardous to the peoples' life. Further no Government/Local Body has legal sanction to act against safety of people or grant permission to install statue against 'norms' laid down by Indian Road Congress-an independent-National level expert body.
39. Further, in the instant case, the permission to install statue had admittedly expired long back on 03-07-2005. Initial permission of 11 month (3-08-2004 to 3-07-2005) has been extended by ADM/Nagar Nigam nor fresh order passed or deed executed (under Clause 13 of deed of terms and conditions dated 3-08-2004) inspite of correspondence between Applicant and ADA.
40. Admittedly, statue was not installed within said period of 11 months and its installation itself is against Terms and Conditions' of permission accorded by ADA and also in violation of Court order dated 15-03-2005 whereby installation of statue was prohibited ( see letter dated 9-9-2005 written by Ashok Kumar Gupta and letter dated 21-12-2005 written by ADA-quoted above). There is no pleading or argument that initial period of 11 months is ever extended. The applicants had no right to install the statue. Installation of statue is unauthorised and it is, apart from being without valid authority, also without sanction in law.
41. Installation of statue-above 1.2. meter is an infringement of 'fundamental right of life of the of other residents/citizens not only of Allahabad but at large. The applicants have miserably and utterly failed to dispute correctness of the safety rules prescribed by Indian Road Congress or other authority as mentioned in the report of the Town Planner/Annexure CA 2 (Counter affidavit of Murlidhar Dubey). Bald allegation of the Applicants that installation of statue does not impede vision of the traffic is against the standards and norms'-prescribed by Indian Road Congress. Applicants do not claim to be the experts of the subject and their assertion that statue does not impede vision has no authenticity of legal sanction. Court is bound to take cognizance and give precedence to the Norms/standards-of safety measures, prescribed by Indian Road Congress and technical report submitted by the Town Planner (ADA) and the CO. (Traffic), Allahabad.
42. Similar order was passed in Lucknow Bench judgement (referred/quoted above). In my opinion, installation of statue on Roads/Road Crossing is a 'mad-race' which cannot to be tolerated in a civilised society. Any object, which impedes vision on roads or obstructs smooth movement of traffic or is otherwise hazardous must be removed forthwith-particularly when applicants have no permission for it and their act is in violation/breach of Court order.
43. In the end, it is to be noted that the applicants, seek to review of order dated 8-05-2006, passed in Writ Petition in which they have not even preferred to make a prayer before Court for being impleaded. The applicants are strangers and could not be allowed to 'hob-nob' with the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2005 (PIL), Anand Mohan v. Union of India and Ors.
44. Applicants, admittedly, comprise Professors of University, Former Judge of High Court, Allahabad, Senior Advocate/Advocate, etc.
45. Jagrat Samaj, Allahabad/Applicant No. 1, claims to have passed resolution on 4-6-2006 which it send to the 'press' for publication on 17-06-2006 (Annexure 1 to the Application). Text of the resolution discloses that decision was taken to intervene in the Writ Petition and oppose-shifting and installation of the statue from Balson Crossing under Court order dated 8.5.2006.
46. Applicants made no effort, at any stage, to seek impleadment in the Writ. Petition. Instead, Applicants resorted to 'Andolan' (see Annexure 3 to the Application) and signature campaign (Annexure 8 to the Application) which reflects that the Applicants, opted to take recourse to 'coercive tactics' to influence 'judicial functioning' of the Court which tantamounted to cause confrontation-and scandalize the Court. Conduct of such members of the Applicants cannot be approved.
46. It has come on record of main Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2005, Anand Mohan v. Union of India and Ors. (in the matter of Civil Misc. Application No. 276434 of 2006 filed by L.M. Singh, Advocate-to de-recognise-Ravi Kiran Jain as Senior Counsel) that one of the member, of the Applicants-Ms. Ranjana Kakkar did condemn the conduct of some of the members of the Applicants (viz. Sh. Ram Bhooshan Mehrotra, Former Judge, Dr. R.C. Tripathi, Dr. Banwari Lai Sharma, Ravi Kiran Jain, Sr. Advocate etc.).
47. The applicants approached this Court by concealing relevant and material fact, viz. permission to install statue vide letter dated 3-8-2004 (quoted above) was for 11 month only and that it was not extended thereafter. Applicants are guilty of withholding material and relevant facts within their knowledge from the Court, inspite of the fact that they had direct bearing on the decision of the Application. Applicants have failed to furnish no 'explanation' as to why 'copies of relevant documents' i.e. order of allotment/Terms and Conditions' were not disclosed in the Application. It amounts to mislead the Court. Lapse on the part of the Applicants, whose member is a former Judge, and a Sr. Advocate, is glaring and serious. Applicants have unmistakably failed to approach the Court with clean hands and hence guilty of abusing process of Court and law. Such a practice need to be denounced/discouraged.
48. Civil Misc. Application No. 263541 of 2006 and Civil Misc. Application No. 263539 of 2006 praying for order as interim measure, it will suffice to mention that learned Counsel for the Applicant, Sri D.S. Mishra, Advocate, has neither referred to them nor pressed these Applications, probably he found them to be infructuous. These applications are, hence rejected as not pressed.
49. All the above applications are liable to be dismissed with direction to ADA, Nagar Nigam DM and SSP, Allahabad (Local Administration) to comply forthwith the Court order dated 8.5.2006 but not beyond one month of this order.
50. Before parting, I may note that the Application is not in accordance with Rules of court. Apart from the above the TITLE' of the 'Application' is incomplete. It does not disclose particulars of main case (the Writ-Petition) in which said 'Miscellaneous Application' is filed, copy of the order dated 8.5.2006 (sought to be reviewed) has not been annexed or quoted in the Application, particulars of all the parties are missing, 'grounds' on which 'Review' is sought, are conspicuously absent and the title of the Application (as Intervention Application) is misleading.
51. Reference may be made to Chapter IX Rule 1 (which prescribe format), Rule 4 (which require full description of parties-including those arrayed as opposite parties), Rule 7(c) (which require name of Court and Presiding officer), Rule 7 (f) (which require grounds to be numbered consecutively) and and Rule 21(2) (which provide for refusal to accept defective Application). Above lapses in drafting and presenting petition/s reflects upon 'casual'/haphazard working and absence of 'responsibility' on the part of the counsel 'DRAFTING and 'Approving'- i.e. Sh. Ravi Kiran Jain and Sh. K.K. Roy.
52. The applicants have acted most irresponsibly and attempted to cause fetters upon Court time which was against public interest apart from wasting Court time and their conduct of not approaching Court with clean hands.
53. No other point urged or pressed.
ORDER
54. Accordingly, the above Civil Misc. Intervention Application No. 130413 of 2006 is dismissed with costs against Applicants which I quantify at Rs. 30,000/- to be paid in equal share by the Applicants to be deposited with Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad, within four weeks from the date of delivery of this judgement under intimation to the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad. In case of failure to deposit the same, Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad shall intimate the District Magistrate to recover it as land revenue and ensure that the costs are deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad as indicated above.