JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Keeping in view the fact that the vehicles of Union of India are also being plied on the sealed/restricted roads, Union of India through Secretary (Home) to the Government of India is arrayed as party respondents and shall figure as respondent No. 9 in the array of respondents. 2. Issue notice to newly added respondent No.9. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, waives notice. Respondent No. 9 is directed to file status report indicating how the Army vehicles are being plied on Mall Road and whether the requisite permits have been issued in terms of the directions issued by this Court in CWPs No. 1916 of 2009 and 7784 of 2010. The particulars of all the permits be also disclosed. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 8 had to file compliance reports in terms of the directions contained in orders, dated 22nd July, 2014, and 22nd September, 2014, though have filed status reports, are evasive and not in accordance with the mandate of the said directions. 4. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to direct respondents No. 1 to 8 to file fresh status reports indicating the steps taken by them to comply with the directions (supra) in letter and spirit and also to spell out what steps they have taken to implement the mandate of the Shimla Road Users and Pedestrians (Public Safety and Convenience) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?). 5. The respondents have furnished the list of permit holders, which, on the face of it, appears not in tune with the mandate of the Act read with direction (b) contained in order, dated 22nd July, 2014, and para 22 of order, dated 22nd September, 2014. In addition to filing the compliance reports, they are directed to pin point who is/are the officer (s) who had issued the permits in violation of the provisions of the Act and are also directed to cancel all those permits, which have been issued in breach of the mandate of the Act. 6. The affidavits filed do disclose that CCTV cameras have not been installed and it has also not been disclosed as to what is the mechanism in place. The concerned authorities to do the needful and report compliance by or before the next date of hearing. 7. 6. The affidavits filed do disclose that CCTV cameras have not been installed and it has also not been disclosed as to what is the mechanism in place. The concerned authorities to do the needful and report compliance by or before the next date of hearing. 7. The respondents, in addition to the compliance reports, shall also furnish the details of the police/traffic officers/officials, who are manning the entry points and what actions they have drawn if they have noticed any violation. 8. The affidavits filed by the respondents do not disclose how many parking places are in place and how many unauthorized parkings are being used. In addition to the compliance reports, they are directed also to indicate what action they have drawn to ban the said parking places. The list of the parkings, which have been misused or which are being misused, be also furnished. 9. Respondent No. 8, in addition to the compliance report, is also directed to indicate what is the mechanism in place for managing the parking of vehicles in terms of the said orders. 10. It appears that the respondents have complied with direction (f), but have not complied with other directions relating to the subject contained in para 16 of order, dated 22nd September, 2014. 11. Respondent No. 8 has filed affidavit in response to the directions, is an eye wash, is directed to file affidavit and also to place on record the policy read with the action drawn by it in terms of paras 18 to 20 contained in order, dated 22nd September, 2014. 12. Respondents No. 4 and 5 have virtually admitted that no long term vision plan is in place. Respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6 are directed to utilize the services of an Expert before submitting the compliance report in terms of para 5 of order, dated 22nd July, 2014. 13. Respondent No. 7 has filed affidavit and has given details that the permits have been issued in favour of the MLAs and also in favour of some officers/officials, is directed to file affidavit how permits were issued in favour of the officers/officials other than MLAs. 14. The authorities, which are empowered to issue permits, must ensure that the vehicle belongs to the person in whose name permit has been granted or is to be granted and whether the permit (s) is/are being misused. 15. 14. The authorities, which are empowered to issue permits, must ensure that the vehicle belongs to the person in whose name permit has been granted or is to be granted and whether the permit (s) is/are being misused. 15. Respondents No. 1 to 8 are directed to remain present in Court on next date of hearing. List on 24th November, 2014. Copy dasti.