Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1318 (HP)

Dharam Pal Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-09-22

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Respondents No. 1 and 3 to 6 have filed replies. Respondent No. 2 has yet to file reply. Respondent No. 1 has also filed status report/compliance report. 2. Keeping in view the fact that public interest is involved, this petition was ordered to be diarized as Public Interest Litigation vide order, dated 22nd July, 2014, and the respondents were directed to file status report (s). 3. In response to direction (a), the respondents have not filed the details as to what steps they have taken to comply with the mandate of the Shimla Road Users and Pedestrians (Public Safety and Convenience) Act, 2007, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The replies filed are vague. They are directed to file the status report (s) indicating as to what measures they have taken to do the needful in terms of the mandate of the Act. 4. In compliance to direction (b), respondent No. 1 has stated that 3023 permits have been issued from the year 2008 to 2014 and 2538 have been renewed, but has not furnished the particulars of the permit holders. 5. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, is also empowered in terms of the Act/Rules and Regulations to issue permits to the Members of the H.P. Legislative Assembly and as per the information, 318 permits have been issued upto 21st August, 2014. 6. It is not known to whom these 318 permits/passes have been issued and by whom. 7. In this backdrop, we deem it proper to array Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly as a party-respondent in the array of respondents and shall figure as respondent No. 7. Registry to make necessary correction in the cause title. 8. Issue notice to newly added respondent No. 7 returnable within four weeks. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 7 is directed to furnish the list of person (s) alongwith full particulars, in whose favour, the said 318 passes/permits have been granted. 9. Respondents No. 1 and 6 are also directed to furnish the list of the permit holders/pass holders alongwith the full particulars, in whose favour the passes/permits have been issued. 10. Respondent No. 7 is directed to furnish the list of person (s) alongwith full particulars, in whose favour, the said 318 passes/permits have been granted. 9. Respondents No. 1 and 6 are also directed to furnish the list of the permit holders/pass holders alongwith the full particulars, in whose favour the passes/permits have been issued. 10. Respondents No. 1, 6 and 7 are further directed to file affidavits indicating as to whether they have followed the mechanism provided under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act. 11. In compliance to direction (c), respondent No. 1 has stated that CCTV cameras are in place at CTO and Silli Chowk to monitor the entry and movement of the unauthorized vehicles, but it does not contain the details what mechanism they have adopted to prevent/deter the plying/movement of the vehicles without passes/permits. 12. In compliance to direction (d), respondent No. 1 has filed the compliance report evasively. It is stated in the reply that the traffic is being managed by the police officers/officials, who are manning the traffic management/traffic posts and challans have been filed against the violators in terms of the mandate of the Act and the rules occupying the field. 13. The proceedings have been drawn in terms of Section 11 of the Act read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”). It is not stated in the reply that how many challans have been made so far and what is the mechanism adopted to check unauthorized plying of vehicles on restricted/sealed roads and how the mandate of the MV Act/Rules is being followed. 14. In compliance to directions (e) and (f), respondent No. 1 has not given the details as to how many parking places are in place; how many sites for parking places have been identified and what steps have been taken to prevent the unauthorized parking. However, in para (f) of the compliance/status report, it has been stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla District has declared the road from Cart Road via Cancer Hospital to the main gate of IGMC, Shimla and the road leading from Gurudwara (Cart Road) to DDU Hospital as “No Parking Zones” vide notifications, dated 24th July, 2014 and 30th July, 2014, respectively, and are manning the same. The report is silent as to what steps have been taken to prevent its fallout and consequences. The report is silent as to what steps have been taken to prevent its fallout and consequences. 15. Respondent No. 6 has stated in para 22 of the reply as to what steps they have taken to create more off-street and on-street parking places/parking zones, but what steps they have taken to implement the same and what steps they have taken to achieve the mandate of the Act is not forthcoming. Respondents No. 1 and 5 have also not stated what steps they have taken to comply with directions (e) and (f). 16. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated at the Bar that the respondents have taken steps to control and regulate the ingress and egress to IGMC Hospital without any hindrance, but that has resulted in traffic jamming and illegal parking near IGMC main gate towards Manchanda Clinic and Lakkar Bazar and has prayed that the respondents be directed to do the needful. Respondents to take appropriate steps. 17. In compliance to direction (g), respondent No. 5 has stated in the reply that the HRTC Taxis, though are being run on the sealed/restricted roads in terms of the directions passed by this Court on 14th October, 2011, in CWP No. 1916 of 2009 and CWP No. 7784 of 2010, but the drivers/owners of the said taxis are misusing the same and have created havoc in the entire Shimla; the taxis are being driven dangerously at high speed; the pedestrians are not in a position to walk and have also sought intervention of this Court. 18. Respondent No. 1 has stated in para 19 of the reply that HRTC has outsourced the taxi services to the private operators. Respondents No. 1 and 3 to 5 to report as to whether that action is in terms of the mandate of the Act and order, dated 14th October, 2011 (supra) made by this Court and whether any leave was sought from this Court to that extent. 19. Respondents No. 1 and 3 to 5 are further directed to restrict the use of the said HRTC Taxis strictly in terms of order dated 14th October, 2011 (supra), copy of which is also made part of the file and mention whereof has been made in para 2 (g) of the reply filed by respondent No. 4, read with the provisions of the Act. 20. 20. The purpose of granting permission to ply the HRTC taxis is contained in the order (supra) read with the Act, but appears to have been misused. Respondents to indicate what steps they have taken to prevent their misuse. 21. Respondent No. 1 has also stated in the reply that there is no need and justification to review the existing permits and re-issue the same. 22. It appears that the residents, who are residing in and around the prohibited/restricted/sealed area, have also been granted the permits/passes. The respondents are directed to file status report to the effect as to whether the said permits/passes has been granted strictly in terms of the Act; whether any permit/pass has been granted to any such resident who is not now residing there and has shifted to any other place and whether the permit holders/pass holders, though not residing within the limits of sealed/restricted roads, are parking their vehicles in the said areas and are performing their job/running the business in the nearby market etc. 23. We have also perused the news paper cutting, dated 9th September, 2014, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in terms of which new permits have been granted to ply the HRTC taxis on 34 new routes by the HRTC authorities. Respondents No. 3 and 5 to file separate affidavits containing the full details as to how many permits have been granted to whom and who has to ply the said taxis and whether outsourcing is permissible. 24. We deem it proper to record herein that the aim and object of the Act is to restore the sanctity of the Shimla City and the sole of the Act is how to preserve and maintain the beauty of the City. 25. Having glance of the above discussions, we deem it proper to direct the respondents to file fresh report (s) in terms of order, dated 22nd July, 2014 read with the directions made hereinabove. Any deviation shall be seriously viewed. 26. List on 27th October, 2014.