Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suo Moto vs State Of Raj on 25 July, 2012
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6355/2012.
Suo Moto Vs. State of Rajasthan
[1]
22
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6355/2012
Suo Moto Vs. State of Rajasthan
..
Date of Order :: 25th July 2012.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II
Mr. Ashok Chhangani]
Mr. Pankaj Sharma ]
Mr. Vipul Singhvi ], Amicus Curiae.
Mr. Deepak Kanojia]
Mr. C.P. Soni ] the applicants
Mr. G.R. Punia, Senior Advocate & AAG with
Mr. Mahendra Choudhary, Assistant to AAG.
Mr. R.S. Saluja, for the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. Mr. Rahul Prakash, DCP (Traffic-East), Jodhpur. Mr. Karni Singh, ACP (Traffic-East), Jodhpur. Mr. Jeevan Khan, ACP (Traffic-West), Jodhpur. Mr. Ram Jeevan Meena, CEO, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. Mr. Naval Kishore Rathore, DTO, Jodhpur.
Mr. Harji Lal Atal, Secretary, JDA Jodhpur.
Mr. M.S. Rawal, Director Engineering, JDA Jodhpur. Mr. K.L. Mathur, Superintending Engineer, PWD (NH), Jodhpur. Mr. G.R. Sankhla, Executive Engineer, PWD (NH), Jodhpur. Mr. Sanjeev Mathur, Executive Engineer (City), PWD, Jodhpur.
<<>> In this matter today, upon questioning by the Court, the learned counsel Mr. R.S. Saluja pointed out that the Municipal Corporation has taken up the drive for removal of encroachments on the public roads and public places. In response to some of the queries, it has been submitted that although due care is being taken to remove only the encroachments but if any action taken in the process is found to be not correct though bonafide, the title holder will be suitably compensated. It has also been specifically submitted that the officers of the Municipal Corporation are sincerely trying to discharge their own duties and have not attempted to deal with the matter anywhere as if being done under any particular order of the D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6355/2012.
Suo Moto Vs. State of Rajasthan [2] Court qua any particular property. The Chief Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation has specifically submitted an undertaking before us, which is taken on record; and shall be considered at the appropriate stage.
During the course of submissions, it has been pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. G. R. Punia that the Traffic Branch of the Police has taken stock of the situation; has prepared a comprehensive plan; and manning of the relevant traffic points has been strengthened with regular supervision and monitoring by the Senior Officers.
It has also been pointed out by the learned AAG that on the part of the Transport Department, several of the vehicles have been checked particularly in regard to the permits and so also as regards the pollution control; and the process is being strengthened.
The learned amicus curiae M/s. Ashok Chhangani, Pankaj Sharma and Vipul Singhvi submitted before the Court that though a few steps have been taken but the work done cannot be said to be reaching the optimum level.
During the course of submissions, the learned amicus curiae Mr. Vipul Singhvi has placed before us a photostat of the minutes of the two meetings of the Jodhpur Traffic Control Board, as held on 23.05.2011 and then, on 28.02.2012. Mr. Singhvi submitted that these kinds of resolutions are rather of eye-wash while particularly referring to minutes of agenda item No. 10 of the meeting dated 23.05.2011 whereby it was directed that a particular report should be submitted by 31.05.2011 and then, to agenda item No. 10 of the meeting dated 28.02.2012 where it appears that the same minutes of D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6355/2012.
Suo Moto Vs. State of Rajasthan [3] the meeting dated 23.05.2011 have been reproduced verbatim even to the extent that the date for submission of the required report is also the same i.e., 31.05.2011 ! When we have posed the question in this regard, Mr. Punia prayed for time to complete to his instructions but suggested that it might have been a matter of bonafide mistake. Mr. Punia, however, admits on instructions that such Traffic Control Board has indeed been constituted.
Leaving the error part of the matter aside, what we feel concerned about is as to why the Traffic Control Board as established under Section 13 of the Jodhpur Development Authority Act ('the Act') is not found functional when several of the shortcomings and drawbacks relating to such aspects of traffic control have been noticed in this matter and promises after promises have made on behalf of the authorities, which are yet to be fulfilled.
We would expect that the Traffic Control Board constituted under Section 13 of the Act should be functioning for the purpose it has been constituted and its proceedings should not remain mere paper proceedings. A prima facie comparison of the photocopies of the minutes of the meetings dated 23.05.2011 and 28.02.2012 gives an impression as if these had only been the paper proceedings of generalised resolutions and not of concrete steps.
During the course of submissions, the learned amicus curiae Mr. Ashok Chhangani has also drawn our attention, inter alia, to the report of the High Power Committee relating to 'Construction of High Rise Buildings in Jodhpur and Building Line' as constituted pursuant to the orders of this Court passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6355/2012.
Suo Moto Vs. State of Rajasthan [4] 6730/1993 (PIL Matter). The relevant aspects of the matter to which Mr. Chhangani wants to refer may be pointed out to the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Punia and the learned counsel Mr. R.S. Saluja for appropriate advice to the concerned authorities.
During the course of hearing, the aspects relating to the road conditions in the city also came up for consideration. In this regard, the learned AAG Mr. Punia submits after taking instructions from the concerned authorities present in the Court that the Jodhpur Development Authority and Public Works Department are already in the process of repairing the roads for which work orders have already been issued; and it is assured that the work shall be expedited.
During the course of submissions, it has also been pointed out that the fiber speed breakers placed on the roads are rather more of problems for the smooth flow of the traffic apart from being health hazards. In this regard, the learned AAG Mr. Punia submits after taking instructions that the earlier, such fiber speed breakers were placed as per the advice of Road Congress but then, second opinion after re-consideration had been that they were not conducive to the traffic management; and Jodhpur Development Authority is in the process of replacing them. It is, however, submitted that for removal of all such offending breakers and substituting them by proper speed breakers, the Jodhpur Development Authority would need some little time.
It is, however, assured on behalf of all the concerned that all the necessary steps as required by law shall be taken in all earnestness, as hitherto taken up by the Municipal Corporation, the D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6355/2012.
Suo Moto Vs. State of Rajasthan [5] Traffic Branch of the Police and the Transport Department.
Though an assurance was made before us as back as on 31.05.2012 that substantial results would come up at least on the 15 main roads of the city of Jodhpur within seven days and much time has elapsed but, looking to the submissions that the authorities have indeed started executing some work in right directions, as at present, we consider it appropriate to grant them some more time to carry out the requirements of their duties.
We had deferred the order on the apology as submitted by the DCP (Traffic) on the last occasion for what transpired during the course of hearing, particularly for his having wrongly contradicted the statement of the learned amicus curiae. Having regard to the overall circumstances, we accept the submissions that the questioned statement by the DCP (Traffic) was neither deliberate nor intentional; and, while accepting the apology tendered by him, this part of the matter is left at that only.
The interlocutory applications as moved in this matter are kept pending and shall be considered at the relevant stage.
As per the submissions made, it appears that the concerned authorities/departments would need about 19-20 days' time to carry out the requirements of their duties so as to ensure smooth flow of the traffic in the city of Jodhpur particularly at the referred 15 main roads. Having regard to the submissions made and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter stands adjourned today; be listed on 13.08.2012.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. /Mohan/