Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2074 (DEL)

SUNDARI H. NAVANI v. M. C. D.

2006-11-13

S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2006
( 1 ) THE Petitioner claims directions to restrain Respondents No 6 to 9 including their staff, visitors, students, parents etc. from converting the road adjacent to Mayfair Garden into a parking place. A direction enjoining the police authorities to ensure that blue line buses, trucks and other heavy vehicles are not parked is also sought. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner claims to be a resident of Mayfair Garden since 1985. He avers that after the establishment of the Lakshman Public School, traffic congestion in the locality started, as heavy traffic was permitted to ply on the 80 feet road, adjoining Mafair Garden. It is also claimed that in addition to heavy traffic, other problems have arisen on account of a large scale illegal parking by visitors, staff members and students of the various institutions which have been impleaded in these proceedings. Simultaneously, it is claimed that the police authorities, after seizing/impounding vehicles during enforcement drives, invariably park those heavy vehicles, trucks on one side of the road. To compound congestion, another problem by way of unauthorized three wheeler stand is also alleged to exist. ( 3 ) COUNSEL appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 6 to 9 institutions deny the averments. It is claimed by the Institute of Home Economics as well as the national Institute of Fashion Design that no parking by the visitors, staff or students can be found on the public road at any point of time since the plots allotted to them are used for the purpose of parking. ( 4 ) THE police authorities namely Respondent No. 5 state that the parking of impounded vehicles has been mandated by the Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta's case in terms of the guidelines issued in that regard. The vehicles which are impounded, are released to owners of vehicles on the same day or the next day. If the vehicles have to be kept for a longer period, they are sent to Aligaon bagh, Mathura Road and are released from there after the duration of impounding. The police authorities also deny that route buses are allowed to ply on the road. The Respondent No. 5 further avers that Mayfair Garden has two gates one the road in question and the other in Khel Gaon Marg. The police authorities also deny that route buses are allowed to ply on the road. The Respondent No. 5 further avers that Mayfair Garden has two gates one the road in question and the other in Khel Gaon Marg. It is open to the respondents of the area to use the other gate but they have decided to shut the said gate. ( 5 ) THE contentions made on behalf the parties and the averments in the pleadings show that the problems are essentially a result of increased vehicular presence, on the road. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there is a gate near Khel Gaon Marg, but it was shut because of security reasons. ( 6 ) IN terms of Section 28 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, the obligation to regulate traffic is with the police authorities; Section 298 of the Delhi municipal Corporation Act, 1957 prescribes that for the purposes of the Act, public strets vest in Corporation (MCD ). The legislative intention is therefore clear that both the police and the MCD are under a duty to maintain the essential characteristics of public roads and streets. This obligation is not merely confined to removing obstructions or structures on such roads, but to ensure free and smooth flow of traffic. Unlawful parking or vehicular obstructions would hinder free flow of traffic, and also decrease road space. ( 7 ) THE facts of this case show that the petitioner's grievance cannot entirely be on account of the traffic in front of the gate of Mayfair Garden. The residents of the locality have determined, for themselves not to use the other gate ? the reason given is better security. This itself has resulted in channelising all ingress and egress to the colony from the road in question. At the same time, the undisputed facts show that there is a constancy in parking at least on one side, where the police are positioning impounded vehicles. This arrangement, undoubtedly convenient to the police as well as the owners of the heavy vehicles impounded, cannot be termed ?temporary? because at all times of the day one set of vehicles would invariably be on the public street, thereby decreasing road space. This state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely. This arrangement, undoubtedly convenient to the police as well as the owners of the heavy vehicles impounded, cannot be termed ?temporary? because at all times of the day one set of vehicles would invariably be on the public street, thereby decreasing road space. This state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely. Since the police authorities are permitting parking of heavy duty vehicles which undeniably occupies a lion's share of such road space, it would be appropriate that a suitable plan is evolved so that such vehicles, are, after impounding parked elsewhere. The police authorities as an interim increase, shall ensure that till such arrangement is made, parking of such large or heavy duty vehicles is limited in number. ( 8 ) A direction is accordingly issued to Respondent No. 5 to ensure that the roads, presently being used to park impounded vehicles is not used by phasing out such use through a suitable plan. The Respondent shall also consider the option of putting a limit to the number of vehicles kept on the road during each day, to mitigate the hardship. The writ petition is disposed off in the above terms.