Gujarat High Court
Dhvanish Sanjaybhai Suthar vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & ... on 14 August, 2015
Bench: Jayant Patel, N.V.Anjaria
C/WPPIL/151/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 151 of 2015
==========================================================
DHVANISH SANJAYBHAI SUTHAR....Applicant(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 3....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
HARDIKKUMAR D RAO, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AMIT M PANCHAL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Opponent(s) No. 3 - 4
MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 - 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MR.JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 14/08/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.JAYANT PATEL)
1. Petitioner by this petition is seeking appropriate relief to direct the respondent authority to decide speed limit of BRTS Buses inside the corridor and outside the corridor. It is further prayed by the petitioner that appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authority to install automatic barrier arm gate or CCTV camera to prevent entry of technical or non-technical vehicles on BRTS corridor. They have further prayed to direct the respondent authority to formulate rules and regulations to prevent accidents and entry of others Page 1 of 7 HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 20 00:27:33 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/151/2015 ORDER on BRTS routes.
2. We have heard Mr.Hardik Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms.Shivani Rajpurohit for learned advocate Mr.Amit Panchal as amicus curiae, Mr.Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Mr.Satyam Chhaya for the Corporation.
3. On behalf of the Corporation on the aspect of controlling of the speed limit affidavit-in-reply has been filed wherein at paragraph 7 it has been stated as under.
"7. It is submitted that as stated above, the answering respondent has not taken proceedings of captioned petition as adversarial litigation and on the contrary the proceedings of the captioned writ petition are taken as opportunity to initiate further effective steps; therefore, after filing of the captioned writ petition the answering respondent has decided to initiate following steps over and above the steps which are narrated hereinabove.
(1) Ahmedabad Janmarg ltd has finalized radio jingle campaign to create awareness about illegal entry within corridor. The said jingle would be on air from 29.07.2015.
(2) Ahmedabad Janmarg Ltd has decided to install notice board/signboard on certain places to educate people at large so as to avoid and/or decrease accident in an around BRTS corridor.
(3) It is to be noted here that so far as the aspect to decide the speed limit is concerned, as per the prevailing procedure operator are informed about the speed limit of 50 KMPH and the monitoring is undertaken through GPS and GPRS. Now answering respondent has decided the speed limit at 50 KMPH and for such purpose technical procedure will have to be undertaken so that the speed limit can be restricted. It is to be noted here that as of now corridor of BRTS is 89 km and route of the BRTS is of 97 km. As per the existing strength of 230 buses are plying on the route and therefore, all these 230 will have to mechanically device so that the speed limit can be introduced and restricted Page 2 of 7 HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 20 00:27:33 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/151/2015 ORDER in each of the buses.
(4) The above referred mechanical/technical procedure would be completed preferable within 2 months after issuing appropriate instructions to the operators."
4. Mr.Chhaya, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has further declared that there is typographical error in paragraph 7(3) and as such the answering respondent has already decided that maximum speed limit will be 50 KMPH and as such device is already installed in 50 buses and in respect of rest of the buses, as stated in sub-paragraph (4), within two months device shall be installed.
5. In our view, aforesaid would take care of the aspect of controlling the speed limit of BRTS buses whenever they are plied on BRTS routes.
6. The next grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner was about accidents happening on account plying of vehicles on BRTS road by citizens. In that regard, at paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply, it has been stated on behalf of the Corporation by the General Manager of BRTS Operations as under.
"6. It is submitted that in order to avoid any motorized or non motorized vehicles inside the BRTS corridor, Ahmedabad Janmarg Ltd has taken following steps.
(1) Near the entry of all BRTS cross roads, the reflective signboard differentiating Mix Traffic Road and BRTS road is kept.
(2) There are more than 150 open cross roads available in entire BRTS network. Ahmedabad Janmarg Ltd has hired services of more than 180 Ex Army Service Men and 60 private security guards deployed on more than 85 cross roads in two shifts on daily basis. This manpower is deployed on very Page 3 of 7 HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 20 00:27:33 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/151/2015 ORDER strategically located cross roads based on the history of accidents, traffic congestion and also after considering demands of traffic police.
(3) All Ex Army men were initially also trained by Road Safety Academy under the direct supervision of Traffic Police Department.
(4) Ahmedabad Janmarg Ltd also tried to generate awareness campaign by installing signboards describing illegal entry for private vehicles under section 188 and 119 at various places like near Valinath Chowk, Jaymangal and Lokmany Tilak bag to Sarangpur Darwaja corridor.
(5) As per the resolution in 30th Board Meeting held on 25.10.2013, a fully automated boom barrier was installed at Raikhad Cross Road BRT station and a manually operated boom barrier was installed at Anjali Cross Road BRT station as a pilot study.
AJL has also decided to install boom barrier at 6 stations as resolved in 30th Board Meeting after successful trial of different types of sample boom barriers. At both the places, boom barriers were damaged at non repairable condition by private vehicles during night.
(6) As resolved in 29th Board Meeting dated 23.08.2013, AJL has installed CAT in entire BRTS network and created retro reflective singages to give guidance of mixed traffic about BRTS lane and also installed rumbler strips at 14 junctions to reduce speed of BRT buses at the cost of Rs.22.92 lacs.
(7) AJL has also tried to create awareness about BRTS by facilitating students of various age groups and tried to convey the importance of public transportation by practical visit to site and control room.
Thus, in view of above, it would become clear that answering respondent has taken all necessary, proper and effective steps to manage the BRTS route and to decrease accidents and fatal accidents."
7. It has been stated on behalf of the Corporation that total expenses of bum gate may about Rs.15.00 crores, as against the same, security services personnel are already deployed. However upon further inquiry by the Court, learned counsel Mr.Chhaya stated that deployment is only during the Page 4 of 7 HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 20 00:27:33 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/151/2015 ORDER limited hours and that to not at all the gates, but only 85 cross roads. He, under the instructions of the deponent of the affidavit, General Manager of BRTS Operations, states that if it is so directed by this Court, Corporation will make arrangement for deploying security staff at cross roads at traffic junction during the period of operation of BRTS buses at the respective route.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances, it appears to us that if the speed limit is controlled of the buses, it would take care of situation for avoidance of accidents. Hence the Corporation shall ensure that wherever speed limit devices are not installed, they would be installed in respective buses. Consequently the Corporation is directed to ensure that speed limit devices are installed in all buses of BRTS with the upper speed limit of 50 KMPH. The aforesaid direction shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.
9. It also appears to us that how and in what manner avoidance of incident of plying private vehicles at BRTS roads should be stopped, would normally be in the domain of administration but at the same time, they should and they must make an attempt to ensure that entry of private vehicles is stopped on the BRTS routes, resultantly, chances of accidents are avoided. But if the Corporation has decided to deploy security at the cross roads at traffic junction instead by way of bum gate, which as per them is Page 5 of 7 HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 20 00:27:33 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/151/2015 ORDER rather a costly affair, and if the Corporation is desirous to take care of the situation by deploying private security at the cross roads at traffic junction, such can also be permitted. As stated before the Court that since private securities are not deployed at all cross roads and that too not for the total period during which operations of BRTS are going on, we direct that the Corporation shall deploy private security guards for prohibiting entry at all the cross roads of BRTS at the traffic junction and further such private security guards should be deployed during the total period of BRTS operations. Such exercise shall be completed within two months from the receipt of the order of this Court. However we make it clear that if the Corporation is of the view that installation of bum gate will be lesser burden in comparison to the regular expenses to be borne of private security guards, it would be for the Corporation to substitute the arrangement for prohibiting private vehicles on BRTS and the present order shall not operate as a bar, but suffice it to observe that until any alternative arrangement is made including that of bum gate or otherwise, direction for deployment of private security guards shall be required to be complied with.
10. It is further observed that the Corporation shall also be at liberty to resort to move appropriate machinery/authority to ensure that entry of private vehicles at BRTS road is prohibited.
11. We may also record that it has been brought Page 6 of 7 HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 20 00:27:33 IST 2015 C/WPPIL/151/2015 ORDER to our notice by amicus curiae that general issues of BRTS roads, operations and for various problems of traffic, the matter is pending before the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.235 of 2012 and allied matters read with the decision of the Apex Court in case of S. Rajaseekaran Vs. Union of India and others reported at (2014) 6 SCC 36. Hence while disposing the present petition, we find it proper to observe that the directions issued in the present matter would remain in operation until any specific order in this regard is passed by the Apex Court in the above- referred litigation. In the event, any specific direction is issued by the Apex Court on the subject matter of the present petition, such order of the Apex Court would prevail over the directions issued by this Court.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(JAYANT PATEL, ACJ.) (N.V.ANJARIA, J.) Anup Page 7 of 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Thu Aug 20 00:27:33 IST 2015