Bombay High Court
Janhit Manch And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors on 15 July, 2019
Author: N. M. Jamdar
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, N. M. Jamdar
1/5
12-pil-62-14.doc
pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 62 OF 2014
Janhit Manch & Anr. ..Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS LODGING NO. 123 OF 2018
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 62 OF 2014
Adnan Abbas Kapasi & Ors. .. Interveners
In the Matter Between
Janhit Manch & Anr. ..Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Bhagvanji Ghunsabhai Raiayni, Petitioner No.2 in person
present.
Mr. L. T. Satelkar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. K. H. Mastakar for
MCGM.
Ms. Yasmin Tavaria a/w Mr. Abhishek Yadav for applicants in
CHSWL/123/2018
::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2019 00:37:12 :::
2/5
12-pil-62-14.doc
CORAM: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, CJ. &
N. M. JAMDAR, J.
JULY 15, 2019.
P.C.
1. The prayers made in the Public Interest Petition read as under :-
"(a) To impose a congestion tax of appropriate amount on the vehicles entering the Island City of Mumbai every day through an electronic system as prevalent in many foreign country, eliminating the need for toll plazas.
(b) To fix the parking charges per hour on roads in proportion to the ready reckoner prices of the lands areawise.
(c) To post attendants during 8 A.M. to 12 A.M. on every road/street of Greater Mumbai for collection of parking charges.
(d) To increase towing squads with tenfold increase in towing vans, to be supplimented with ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2019 00:37:12 ::: 3/5 12-pil-62-14.doc enhancement of wheel locking equipments commensurate with the locking team and reintroducing the system of pasting memos of high amount on the erring vehicles.
(e) To direct the owners of diesel cars to pay appropriate pollution cess on the principle of `Polluters pay' judgments of the Supreme Court.
(f) To completely ban parking in the front open spaces in lieu of DCR 36 of the BMC.
(g) To provide compulsory 10% - 25% guest parkings in every compound as provided in DCR of BMC or in the alternative for fixing signages outside the compounds on the road for guest parkings round the clock.
(h) To stipulate alternate day parking on sides of the roads 44' feet wide or less unless the same are with very less car population or very less traffic.
(i) To direct the concerned Respondents to evolve a system of receiving applications from the organizers of processions on number of participants in marriage, religious feats, political rallys or the likes for charging per head of processionists and not permitting mikes in music.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2019 00:37:12 ::: 4/5
12-pil-62-14.doc
(j) To direct registering authorities through Respondent No.1 to restrict no. of cars to be owned by a family.
(k) To stipulate minimum family income for purchase and maintenance of car.
(l) To direct Respondent No.1 to appoint an expert committee to consider all the above prayers and submit its report to the Hon'ble Court within 3 months."
2. Suffice it to state, all prayers relate to a matter of policy and this court cannot lay down a policy.
3. The Petitioner No.2 who appears in person states that various orders passed in the Public Interest Petition from time to time show the urgency to frame a policy. The court has constituted Committees to submit reports and thus prays that till a report is prepared containing a policy, the matter be monitored by the Court.
4. We are not inclined to keep the matter on the board for the reasons not only are the reliefs prayed for a matter of policy, but the additional reason is the interim orders on which the ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2019 00:37:12 ::: 5/5 12-pil-62-14.doc petitioners place reliance upon. The interim orders show that the court is trying to grapple with policy matters and obviously there would be no end to it.
5. Experts from the Transport Department as also the Police Department, including the Road Transport Authorities have been banging their head to prepare a policy.
6. It is settled law that if a court cannot have a manageable judicial standard to evolve, notwithstanding there being a problem, the court would require solution to be found elsewhere.
7. We dispose of the Public Interest Petition by terminating the proceedings but clarifying that the Committees constituted to look into the problem and find a solution would continue to meet and if a solution is found to the problem, the policy decision would be given effect to.
8. Chamber Summons Lodging No. 123 of 2018 does not survive and is disposed of.
N. M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE
::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2019 00:37:12 :::