Judgment 1.None appeared for the petitioner. Heard learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. Judgment 1.None appeared for the petitioner. Heard learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. In this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed as under: - “(i) to issue a writ or order in the nature of writ/mandamus to quash the advertisement dated 09.03.2004 (Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively) and also quash the acts/actions pursuant thereto; and (ii) to issue a writ of prohibition to the non-petitioners to interdict leasing/letting out public streets, pavements and footpaths of Jaipur city; and (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the non-petitioners to terminate immediately all such parking stands on public streets, pavements and foothpaths and discontinue the same at once with declaration that the non-petitioners have no authority under the statute to lease/let out public street, pavements and foothpaths thereof for parking purposes; and (iv) to issue a writ of mandamus or any equally efficacious order/direction commanding the non-petitioners to remove immediately all these existing encroachments in whatsoever nature/king, the cabins, thaddies, stalls and parking, as the case may be and to ensure prevention thereof in future also; and (v) to declare invalid/illegal all these leasing/letting out of public streets, pavements and foothpaths of the Jaipur city for any purpose and as such kindly quash all these orders regarding leasing/letting of streets, pavements and foothpaths thereof in the Jaipur city, and simultaneously to declare that by allowing encroachment on these street and foothpaths the Non-petitioner No. 2 committed mischief to the public properties; and (vi) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the non-petitioners to provide and always make available the neat and clean these streets and foothpaths of Jaipur city without any encroachment; and (vii) to declare that the governance of the non-petitioners are not carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and laws made thereunder; and (viii) to direct interdiction of undue interference in day to day administration of the non-petitioners; and (ix) to declare that the non-petitioners have committed contempt of this Honble High Court by flouting the order dated 21.04.1989 passed by this Honble High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4492/1998, Prakash Deshbandhu vs. The Municipal Council, Jaipur & Ors., and initiation of contempt proceeding may kindly be ordered; and (x) to grant any other relief which may be deemed just and necessary to serve the public interest and public purposes on the grounds of equity, Justice and good conscience.” 3. In this writ petition, the issue has been raised regarding the place of parking and encroachment on the road side which has not been taken care by the respondents. This Court has directed on 15.09.2004 and 010.2004 as under:- “15.09.2004 Accordingly, we direct that the JDA shall not approve the building plans for a multi-storey building unless the plan provides for adequate space for parking of vehicles of the occupiers of the building and the visitors within the building itself . We also direct the JDA to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the violators, who have raised multi-storied building in contravention of the rules, if any, with regard to providing parking space in the premise of the multi-storied building itself . 010.2004 JDA shall file an action taken report with regard to the entire city. However, as a sample survey, the JDA shall carry out inspection of Tilak Nagar and Banipark areas of Jaipur city and file an action taken report on or before the next date. In so far as remaining areas are concerned, the action taken report shall be filed within two weeks.” 4. In reply, the respondents have denied the allegations that no proper steps have been taken for removing the encroachment and providing proper car parking, where ever it is needed. 5. The relevant para of the reply reads as under:- “(b) That according to Clause 3.2, the Urban Roads can be classified into four categories i.e., Arterial, Sub-Arterial, Collector Street and Local Street. The Arterial Urban Roads serves as the principal network for through traffic flows. Sub-Arterial Roads are functional similar to Arterial, but they cator to some what lower level of travel mobility. Likewise Collector streets performs the function to collect traffic from local streets and feed it to the Arterial and Sub-Arterial Streets. Local Streets are intended primarily to provide excess to abutting property and normally do not carry large volume of traffic. Local streets may be residential, commercial or industrial depending on the predomenent use of the adjoining land they allow unrestricted parking and pedestrian movement. Table-4 under Clause 6.2.3 of IRC 86-1983 provides the width and PCU of roads to have free frontage access, parked vehicles and heavy cross traffic. Local streets may be residential, commercial or industrial depending on the predomenent use of the adjoining land they allow unrestricted parking and pedestrian movement. Table-4 under Clause 6.2.3 of IRC 86-1983 provides the width and PCU of roads to have free frontage access, parked vehicles and heavy cross traffic. This provision clearly establish that the urban roads can always have parking facility for vehicles on road sides subject to compliance of the norms prescribed under these provisions and General Municipal and Motor Vehicles Laws. The petitioner appears to be completely oblivious of these space standards for roads in urban areas and under sheer ignorance of the specifications given by Indian Road Congress has bothered this Honble Court with this petition of no substance. (c) That not only parking on roads sides is permitted by the IRC an expert body in this regard, but also the design the geomatrical designs standards for urban roads in plains take care of the actual roads width, carriage way parking lane, side walk, unpaved area and cycle track. Detailed typical cross section provided under Clause 7.1 of IRC 69-1977 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/2/2. The typical cross section and geometric design specified by IRC are being submitted to stress the point that there is no substance in the contention that on urban roads detailed hereinabove into four categories by the IRC no parking can be provided. Rather the matter of the fact is that no planning of an effective system of urban roads is complete unless proper parking is provided on the road alongwith the carriage way. (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 designate 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 Annexures R/2/3 to R/1/8. (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 have made reference to some of the provisions of the above stated Acts but the interpretation taken is absolutely misconceived. III. That in theback 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 interferred with more particularly when the system available is prevalent for last so many years and same is working effectively. (b) That challenge to Annexures-4 and 5 which are advertisement calling bits for auction of permanent parking places is hopelessly misconceived in as much as the parking places mentioned thereunder have been designated by the Collector and District Magistrate, Jaipur in exercise of its statutory power under the Central Motor Vehicles Act and Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules. Therefore, unless the decision taken by the competent authority under the aforesaid act is challenged, no challenge can lie to consequential actions. (c) That the petitioner has raised many grievances but has 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. (d) That the petitioner has completely failed to make any industries research in the subject concerned and he has merely cited certain news paper 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 news paper article. Apart from this news paper cutting is not an admissible evidence under Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. (e) 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. (f) 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. Now reverting to the parawise reply the humble replying respondents most respectfully submit as under:- 1. That the contents of 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 requires no comments. 3. That the contents of 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 requires no comments. 3. That the contents of Para No. 3 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and it is submitted that for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs of this reply the writ petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. 4. That the contents of Para No. 4 of the writ petition are denied being to vague and inspecific. 5. That the contents of Para No. 5 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and it is submitted that of late with the gradual development of civilised society scientific methods have been evolved for the development of urban road system and roads have been segregated into various categories mentioned hereinabove. 6. That the contents of Para No. 6 of the writ petition are denied being to vague, in specific and unscientific. Planning of a road includes foothpath/pavement, parking space and carriage way. Width of the above stated components of a street/road have been defined by the Indian Road Congress and the notification under challenged do not include any place which is a footpath. 7. That the contents of Para No. 7 of the writ petition are denied being hopelessly misconceived. The action in question is not at all an obstruction to a public way. In fact it is an act enabling the public facility. 8. That the contents of Para No. 8 of the writ petition are denied being misconceived and it is submitted that the petitioner has completely failed to distinguish carriage way from parking and pavement/footpath/side walk etc. According to petitioner every single inch of a road/street is carriage way, therefore, it cannot be used for any purpose except vehicular traffic. The petitioner is labouring under sheer misconception of facts as well as law and unnecessarily dragging the respondents in litigation. Rest contents are denied being misconceived and without any basis. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that the Jaipur Municipal Corporation has let out footpath for the purposes of the parking. The petitioner is labouring under sheer misconception of facts as well as law and unnecessarily dragging the respondents in litigation. Rest contents are denied being misconceived and without any basis. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that the Jaipur Municipal Corporation has let out footpath for the purposes of the parking. In the absence of documentary proof to substantiate allegation no amount of arguments will make false allegations true. 9. That the contents of Para No. 9 of the writ petition requires no comments. 10. That the contents of Para No. 10 of the writ petition requires no comments, since the petitioner has reproduced certain statutory provisions. 11. That the contents of Para No. 11 of the writ petition contains lofty statements based on certain news paper reports. Thus, no credence can be attached to such sweeping and general statements. 12. That the contents of Para No. 12 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and it is submitted that the respondent Jaipur Municipal Corporation and the humble replying respondents are not allowing footpaths to be used for any other purpose. It is relevant to mention that the width of a footpath on all kinds of roads ranges in between 1.5 mts. to 3 mts. depending upon the intensity of pedestrians. 13. That the contents of Para No. 13 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and it is submitted that the petitioner has no reason to be shock and surprise since auction of permanent parking places is taking place since long. The respondent JMC notify its intention for allotment of parking places through tender process in respect of those places which are designated by the Competent Authority as a parking place under the relevant statutory provisions. The process of tender is pressed into service to ensure proper regulation of parking spaces and meaningful fiscal returns to the local Authority. 14. That the contents of Para No. 14 of the writ petition are denied being false and it is submitted that the places mentioned in the notification above stated are not footpath. 15. That the contents of Para No. 15 of the writ petition are denied and it is stated that the respondents are utilising the roads in the interest of public at large in due discharge of their statutory obligation. 16. 15. That the contents of Para No. 15 of the writ petition are denied and it is stated that the respondents are utilising the roads in the interest of public at large in due discharge of their statutory obligation. 16. That the contents of Para No. 16 of the writ petition are denied being irrelevant. The Varandah has no relevance with the case at hand. 17. That the contents of Para No. 17 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and it is submitted that the building bye-laws be that of JMC or JDA provides for parking spaces required for construction of a building to house the parking requirement of building concerned and this parking is in addition to the places designated by the competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act. Normally residents of a particular building complex is not allowed to use public parking. 18. That the contents of Para No. 18 of the writ petition are denied being hopelessly misconceived and it is submitted that the Building Regulations, 2000 in no way affect the rights of JMC to regulate parking spaces in the city. In fact the building regulations speaks about internal parking requirement of the building complex and has nothing to do with parking spaces designaged under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules made thereunder. 19. That the contents of Para No. 19 of the writ petition are denied being false. 20. That the contents of Para No. 20 of the writ petition are denied and it is stated that the Indian Road Congress has described local streets to mean a way directly accessible from building adjoining the street and characterised by predominent use to which the adjoining buildings have been put to. Local streets can always have unrestricted parking and free flow of traffic. Almost all the streets walled city are local streets as per IRC 86-1983. Therefore, there is nothing chaotic. 21. That the contents of Para No. 21 of the writ pteition are not admitted in the manner stated. Traffic Master Plan has already been prepared by the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project. The Traffic Master Plan was circulated to the members of the Jaipur Traffic Control Board. Therefore, there is nothing chaotic. 21. That the contents of Para No. 21 of the writ pteition are not admitted in the manner stated. Traffic Master Plan has already been prepared by the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project. The Traffic Master Plan was circulated to the members of the Jaipur Traffic Control Board. The matter is pending consideration awaiting comments of the members and once the process is over the local authorities will be in position to put in place the traffic master plan and regulate the traffic in the city in accordance therewith. Rest contents are denied being hopelessly misconceived. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974, Rules is not applicable because roads are not part of the urban land which can be disposed under those Rules. 22. That the contents of Para No. 22 of the writ petition are denied being hopelessly misconceived and false. 23. That the contents of Para No. 23 of the writ petition are denied for the reasons stated in Para 12 of the reply. 24. That the contents of Para No. 24 of the writ petition are denied being irrelevant. 25. That the contents of Para No. 25 of the writ petition are denied being irrelevant. 26. That the contents of Para No. 26 of the writ petition are denied being irrelevant and it is submitted that the writ petition filed by Sh. Prakash Shukla has nothing to do with parking spaces as designated by the competent authority. 27. That the contents of Para No. 27 of the writ petition are replied in terms of Para . 26 of reply. 28. That the contents of Para No. 28 of the writ petition are denied and it is stated that in no way the respondents are allowing use of footpaths for parking. 29. That the contents of Para No. 29 of the writ petition are denied and it is stated that the respondents have not clouted the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 4492/1998. 30. That the contents of Para No. 30 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and it is submitted that the case referred pertains to problems created by thadi, stalls and thela. Recently the respondents have undertaken safe and clear roads operation and removed large number of this kind of temporary encroachments. 30. That the contents of Para No. 30 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and it is submitted that the case referred pertains to problems created by thadi, stalls and thela. Recently the respondents have undertaken safe and clear roads operation and removed large number of this kind of temporary encroachments. The State some times back came out with Mukhaya Rozgar Yojna and constructed large number of kiosks in the State including city of Jaipur and allotted kiosks to such thadi, thela and stall holders. It is thus clear that the State has not only prepared scheme, but also implemented the same. Regularly such encroachments are being removed.” 6. Even in compliance of the aforesaid directions, the compliance report has also been submitted. It is thus clear that the State has not only prepared scheme, but also implemented the same. Regularly such encroachments are being removed.” 6. Even in compliance of the aforesaid directions, the compliance report has also been submitted. For ready reference it reads as under:- t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;ijqVªsfQd dUVªksy cksMZ dh cSBd gsrq ,ts.Mk uksVA a,ts.Mk lar ikÉda fo"k;% & VªsfQd dUVªksy cksMZ dh 43oha cSBd fnukad 13-02-2004 es0 2 ds vUrxZx O;oLFkk ds laca/k esa vko;d lakks/ku ckcrA r ikÉdx O;oLFkk ds lacaVªsfQd dUVªksy cksMZ dh 43oha cSBd fnukad 13-02-2004 eas,ts.Mk la0 2 ds vUrxZ/k e asvko';d lakks/ku ds fy, ,d lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa fuEukuqlkj lnL; euksuhr fd; sx;s Fk%&s 1- funskd ¼vk;kstuk½ tfoizk] t;iqjA 2- funskd ¼vfHk;kaf=dh½ tfoizk] t;iqjA 3- vfr eq[; uxj fu;kstd] uxj fuxe t;iqjA xfBr lfefr ds lnL;ksa }kjk fnukad 04-06-2004 dks cSBd dh x;h ftlesa fopkj&foekZ mijkUr fuEukuqlkj izLrko fn; sx;s%& aa eq[; lM+d dh vksa 6 ehVj Hkw iV~Vh vkxUrqdksa dh 1- O;kolkf;d@lLFkkxr Hkouksa esj lkeus ds lSV csd es ikÉdx ds fy, lqfuf'pr j[kh tkuh vko;d gksxhA ;g ikÉdx Hkou ds ,Q-,-vkj- ds vk/kkj ij izko/kkfur dh x;h ikÉdx ds vfrfjDr gksxhA vkxUrqdksa ds fy;s izLrkfor dh x;h 6 ehVj pkSMh Hkw&iV~Vh tfoizk ds gd esa lefiZr dh tkuh gksxhA 2- vkoklh; QysV~l@xqi gkmflax ds izdj.kksa esa vkxUrqdksa dh ikÉdx eq[; lM+d ds lkeus dh vksj lsV csd esa 6 ehVj pkSMh Hkw&iV~Vh j[krs gq, gksxh tks eq[; Hkou esa ,Q-,-vkj ds vk/kkj ij izko/kkfur dh x;h ikÉdx ds vfrfjDr gksxh vFkok vkxUrqdksa dh ikfdZx 25 izfrkr vfrfjDr izLrkfor dh tkuh gksxh ftls Hkou ifjlj ds vanj gh izLrkfor fd;k tk ldrk gSA vkxUrqdksa ds fy;s izLrkfor dh x;h 6 ehVj pkSM+h Hkw&iV~Vh tfoizk ds gd esa lefiZr dh tkuh gksxhA mijksDr izLrkoksa dks Hkou fofue; esa tc vko;d lakks/ku fd;k tkosxk rks bu lakks/kuksa dks Hkh ladfyr dj fy;k tkosxkA izdj.k lfefr ds le{k fopkjkFkZ izLrqr gSA ,lMh@& funskZd ¼vk;ks tuk½ Ø-la- ,tsUMk la-fo"k; fu.kZ; lcafa/kr vf/kdkjh ;g izLrko fn;k gS fd ;fn izLrkfor fjax jksM dks uskuy gkbos vkFkksfjVh vkQ bafM;k }kjk vius [kpZa ls fufeZr fd;k tkrk gS rks izLrkfor fjax jksM ds fy;svko;d Hkwfe izkf/kdj.k }kjk vokIr dj fukqYd miyC/k djok;h tk ldrh gSA 9- t;iqj VªsfQd dUVªksy cksMZ dh 43oha cSBd ds ,ts.Mk vkbZVe 43-7] tks fd vkj-;w-vkbZ-Mh-lh }kjk fufeZr fnYyh ckbZikl ds lkSUn;dj.k lslacaf/kr Fkk] ds Øe esa ;g fu.kZ; fy;Zfdr vf/kdkjh ekSdk fujh{k.k dj vius dk;Z{ksx;k fd bl jksM+ ds lkSUn;dj.k ds fy, fuEuka= lslcafa/kr lkSUn;dj.k esa vk jgh ck/kk,¡ nwj djoka%& 1-vfrfjDr vk;Dr iw] t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj Z,xsqoZj 2- vfriqfyl v/kh{kd] ;krk;kr] t;iqj 3- v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk] vkj-;wjkgj] t;iq-vkbZ-Mh-ih- ,oa 5- lfdZy vfHk;ark VsªfQd t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj vfrfjDr vk;Dr iow] Zt;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k 44-3 iz- 51 la 53 Hkq[k.M la[;k lh&17 Hkxoku nkl jksM ij fufeZr eky&21 ds ihNs ikfdZax LFky ij ikfdZax gsrq tkus dk jkLrk miyC/k djokus ckcrA fopkj&foekZ ipkr~ izLrkoukuqlkj Hkw[k.M la[;k lh&17 Hkxokunkl jksM ij fufeZr eky&21 ds ihNs ikfdZx LFky ij tkus gsrq 20 QhV fyad jksM+ dk;e djus dh Loh-fr iznku dh x;hA vfrfjDr vk;Dr ifpe] t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k 44-4 iz-54 t;iqj VsªfQd dUVªksy cksMZ dh 43oha cSBd fnukad 13-02-2004 eas,ts.Mk la[;k 2 ds vUrxZr ikfdZax O;oLFkk ds laca/k esa vko;d lakks/ku ckcrA fopkj&foeZk ipkr~ orZeku Hkou fofu;e esa ikfdZx O;oLFkk ds laca/k esa vko;d lakks/ku gsrq tks izLrko izLrqr fd; sx;s gS] mUgsa izLrkfor lakks/ku Hkou fofu;e esa lfEefyr fd;stkus gsrq Loh-fr iznku dh x;hA funskd vk;kstuk] t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k 44-5 iz- 55 la- 56 xksikyiqjk ckbZikl ij fjf} & flf) pkSjkgs ds lkeus eq[; lM+d ij nksuksa vksj LihM czsdj cuk; s tkus ckcr~ mDr ,ts.Mk ij foLrkj ls fopkj &foeZk fd;k x;kA cksMZ+ dks ;g voxr djok;k x;k fd lkekU;r% ssSub-arterial road ij LihM csØj ugha cuk;s tkrs gSa rFkk xksikyiqjk ckbZikl 200 QhV M+k gksus ds dkj.k funskd vfHk;kapkSf=dh] t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k t;iqj fodkl izkf /kdj.k bafnjk lfdZy] tokgjyky usg: ekxZ] t;iqj 302 004 tfoizk@l-l-@chihlh@2004@Mh&629 fnukad 08-10-2004 eq[; dk;Z dkjh vf/kdkjh t;iqj uxj fuxe] t;iqjA fo"k;%& ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Mh-ch-flfoy fjV fiVhku uacj 2104@2004 vfjgUr dqekj tSu cuke tfoizk o vU;A egksn;]mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr lanfHkZr okn esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 15-09-2004 ,oa 04-10-2004 dksjkgj esa izLrkfor dh fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gS ¼izfrfyfi layXu½ ftlesa t;iqa fufeZr cgqeaftys Hkouksa esx;h ikfdZax dk Hkou fofu;eksa ds vUrxZr mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS mu lHkh izdj.kksa dh fØ;kfUofr fjiksVZ Lrqr dh tkuh gS ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k izA vr% t;iqj uxj fuxe ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa fufeZr fd;s x;s cgqeaftys Hkouksa esa izLrkfor ikfdZax dks ;Fkkor j[kk x;k gS vFkok mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS A bl laca/k esa foLr`r fjiksVZ 15 fnol esa rS;kj djokbZ tkdj fuEu gLrk{kjdrkZZ dks iszf"kr djus dh Ñik djsa ftlesa r dh tk ldsA lkFk gh cuhikdZ ,oa fryd uxj {ks= es fØ;kfUofr fjiksVZ izLrqa fufeZr cgqeaftys Hkouksa ds lUnHkZ esa fjiksVZ 4 fnol esa fHktokus dk Je djsaA Hkonh; ,lMh@& funskd ¼vk;kstuk½ t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] t;iqj izfrfyfi%& 1- vfr- eq[; uxj fu;kstd] uxj fuxe t;iqj dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko;d dk; Zokgh gsrqA ,lMh@& funskd ¼vk;kstuk½ t;iqj fodkl izkf /kdj.k] t;iqjA 7. In view of the relevant paras of the reply as also the compliance report, no further order or direction need be passed on this petition. 8. The petition stands dismissed