Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2577 (RAJ)

Shripal Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-26

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA, Y.R.MEENA

body2005
Judgment 1.Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the issue has been raised regarding parking in the road side and also in multi storey buildings and the petitioner has prayed as under:- “(a) that, with the appropriate direction place of parking is used for any other type of commercial activities should be used only for parking, (b) that, the projects for single or double storey parking in the Jaipur City either by JDA or Municipal Corporation since 1995 proposed or under process may kindly be filed before Honble Court with the expenditure already incurred, budget provisions and time needed for completion. (c) That, the cost of modern double storey car parking in JDA complex for the use of staff , the cost may kindly be recovered from staff like toll tax on roads and charges as car parking, (d) that car, parking on footpath must stop which are under operation and corporation has given to the contractors. Besides National High ways are not used for car parking. (e) that, encroachment outside flats, houses or plots needs removal being unauthorized encroachment. (f) that, educational institutes are warned not to permit car parking or there buses out side their premises to have a smooth use of roads. (g) any other relief as deemed fit.” 3. In reply, the Respondent No. 2 has stated that various places are earmarked for parking on the road side and there are sufficient provisions under the JDA Act and Municipal Corporation Act to provide a place for parking in the multi storey buildings and that is being acted upon. The relevant paras of the reply reads as under:- “(d) That the parking places in a city can be designated under the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed thereunder. The Regional Transport Authority concerned and the District Collector is competent to designate a particular place as parking. The State of Rajasthan in exercise of its power under Section 96 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 framed the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules 1990 which came into force on 16.07.1990. Under the Motor Vehicles Act not only the permanent parking places can be designated, but also haulting stations etc. can be specified. The State of Rajasthan in exercise of its power under Section 96 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 framed the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules 1990 which came into force on 16.07.1990. Under the Motor Vehicles Act not only the permanent parking places can be designated, but also haulting stations etc. can be specified. Reference in this regard is made to the provisions of Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government can determine places at which motor vehicles may stands either indefinitely or for a specify period of time and can also determined the places at which the vehicles may stop for a longer time then is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers. Rule 8.1 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules provides power to the District Collector to designate certain places as permanent parking places. The District Collector in exercise of its power under the aforesaid rules designates the places. In the City of Jaipur, the District Collector through various orders have designated certain places in the city of Jaipur as permanent parking places. Though these orders were issued in February, 2004 but similar orders before the issuance of these orders are in vogue since decades. Various orders issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, Jaipur in this regard are filed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/2/3 to R/2/8. (e) That likewise there are certain provisions under the JDA Act and the Rajasthan Municipalities Act for regulating the system of roads including parking etc. in the city and other urban areas. The petitioner has made reference to some of the provisions of the above stated Acts but the interpretation taken is absolutely misconceived. III. That in the back drop of above stated facts, it is clear that the writ petition is not at all maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed on the basis of following preliminary objections:- (a) That the relief prayed in the writ petition pertains to day to executive and administrative affairs of the JDA and Jaipur Municipal Corporation, therefore in public interest proceedings such administrative affairs cannot be interfered with more particularly when the system available is prevalent for last so many years and same is working effectively. (b) That the petitioner has raised many grievances, but as miserably failed to suggest any solution to the so called problems. The petition, from a bare perusal, is definitely adversorial in nature and, therefore, same is not at all maintainable. (c) That the petitioner has completely failed to make any industries research in the subject concerned and he has merely cited certain newspaper articles, which are not at all reliable proof of the circumstances as held by the Supreme Court recently in the case reported in 2004 (3) SCC 361 while considering a public interest litigation based on newspaper article. Apart from this newspaper cutting is not an admissible evidence under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, also that writ petition is liable to be dismissed. (d) That the petitioner has suppressed the relevant statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules made thereunder. The petitioner has also suppressed the specifications standards etc. for urban roads laid down by Indian Road Congress. Therefore, also the writ petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. (e) That the petitioner has levelled false allegations about the working of Traffic Control Board. The Traffic Control Board is regularly meeting and taking decision in accordance with law. Details shall be given at appropriate basis in the reply. (f) That the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Society, however the registration certificate of said society has not been filed nor any authorization empowering the petitioner through file the present writ petition is annexed. Therefore, also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Now reverting to the parawise reply the humble replying respondents most respectfully submit as under:-Parawise Reply 1. That the contents or Para No. 1 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and it is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. 2. That the contents of Para No. 2 of the writ petition are denied and it is stated that public parking in the city is properly regulated and foothpaths are used for the purpose assigned. 3.That the contents of Para No. 3 of the writ petition are denied. Footpaths are used for the purpose assigned and parking is allowed at appropriate parking places. 4. 3.That the contents of Para No. 3 of the writ petition are denied. Footpaths are used for the purpose assigned and parking is allowed at appropriate parking places. 4. That the contents of Para No. 4 of the writ petition pertains to the Respondent No. 3. 5. That the contents of Para No. 5 of the writ petition are denied being false. It is denied that there is complete embargo under the control of National Highways Land and Traffic Act, 2002 to allow parking on the roads. The only requirement is that use of National highways at certain places for parking is regulated by the authority concerned and they are required to collect to charges. Accordingly when the Respondent No. 2 was informed about the Competent Authority in this regard, contract for parking on national highways situated in city were not given. It is denied that the corporation has marked any foothpath as public parking since permanent parking places are designated by the Collector and District Magistrate under the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under Section 170 and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 under Rule-8. The District Collector has designated about 300 places in the city as permanent parking places and the corporation is allowing only such designated places for parking purposes through award of contract. 6. That the contents of Para No. 6 of the writ petition are denied in terms of Para 5 of the reply. 7. That the contents of Para No. 7 of the writ petition pertains to the Respondent No. 3. 8. That the contents of Para No. 8 of the writ petition are denied for the want of knowledge and proof . The petitioner has levelled bald allegations. 9. That the contents of Para No. 9 of the writ petition pertains to Respondents No. 3 10. That the contents of Para No. 10 of the writ petition pertains to Respondent No. 3. 11. That the contents of Para No. 11 of the writ petition are denied being false. 12. That the contents of Para 12 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and it is submitted that all citizen are obliged to pay for the facilities. The parking charges are charged from all persons. 13. 11. That the contents of Para No. 11 of the writ petition are denied being false. 12. That the contents of Para 12 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and it is submitted that all citizen are obliged to pay for the facilities. The parking charges are charged from all persons. 13. That the contents of Para No. 13 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and it is submitted that a road user will to pay for facility which he is using. 14. That the contents of Para No. 14 of the writ petition are denied being false. 15. That the contents of Para No. 15 of the writ petition pertains to Respondent No. 3. 16. That the contents of Para No. 16 of the writ petition are denied and it is submitted that the news paper clippings cannot be relied as proof of the circumstances. 17. That the contents of Para No. 17 of the writ petition are denied in terms of Para 16 of the reply. 18. That the contents of Para No. 18 of the writ petition pertains to Respondent No. 3. 19. That the contents of Para No. 19 of the writ petition are relied in terms that when similar petition on the same is pending in the nature of public interest litigation then how this petition is maintainable and filing of the present writ petition is not more than an overt attempt on the part of the petitioner to arrest public glare. 20. That the contents of Para No. 20 of the writ petition are denied being inspecific and vague. 21. That the contents of Para No. 21 of the writ petition are denied. 22. That the contents of Para No. 22 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and it is submitted that the proposed projects were not finalised. 23. That the contents of Para No. 23 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and it is submitted that strict regulations are being formulated to ensure proper parking by multistorey buildings. Traffic Master Plan has also been formulated and same is going to be finalised very soon. 224. That the contents of Para No. 24 of the writ petition are denied for the want of knowledge and proof . 225. Traffic Master Plan has also been formulated and same is going to be finalised very soon. 224. That the contents of Para No. 24 of the writ petition are denied for the want of knowledge and proof . 225. That the contents of Para No. 25 of the writ petition are denied for the want of knowledge and proof .” 5. The perusal of the reply shows that the petitioner without any material, just levelled the bald allegations against the respondents. 6. We also perused the various notifications issued, which are placed on record, where specific places are earmarked for car parking, scooter parking to facilitate the public in general. 7. In view of the provisions regarding car parking under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Jaipur Development Authority Act and Municipal Corporation Act, we see no substance in this petition specially when no specific case has been brought alongwith the material to sustain the allegation of the petitioner. 8. The petition stands dismissed.