Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 966 (KER)

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala

2022-11-10

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, P.G.AJITHKUMAR

body2022
ORDER : Anil K. Narendran, J. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, has filed this report regarding the directions to be issued to the respective authorities to complete the maintenance and repair works of the road network leading to Sabarimala and maintain the roads and pedestrian facilities strictly in conformity with the relevant standards and guidelines, to ensure strict enforcement of Road Safety Policy and also the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, in terms of the directions contained in the orders of the Apex Court and this Court, in order to ensure the safety of most vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly and differently-abled persons, during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1198 ME (2022-23). 2. In the report, it is stated that, Sabarimala pilgrims travel in different types of vehicles including Light Motor Vehicles and Contract Carriages from other States and far away places. Often these vehicles are seen flouting the prescribed standards of road safety, which are fitted with high-power music systems and prohibited lighting, which distracts the concentration of the drivers. Reverse light is absent in some of the vehicles. Several tractors are plying between Pampa and Sannidhanam for ferrying goods. The roadworthiness of the tractors plying through the trekking path has to be checked by competent authorities. The Public Works Department (PWD), National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP) have to complete the repair and maintenance work of the entire road network leading to Sabarimala. Along with this SSCR, the Special Commissioner has placed on record Annexures 1 to 4 reports of the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH) Division and Chief Engineer (Projects), KSTP. The repair and maintenance work of all identified roads and also other roads leading to Sabarimala are progressing on a war footing. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of SSCR, the Special Commissioner has pointed out the progress of the pending works. 3. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and also the learned Amicus Curiae for the Special Commissioner. 4. In C.S.S. Motor Service v. Madras State [ AIR 1953 Mad 279 ] a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that all public streets and roads vest in the State, but that the State holds them as trustee on behalf of the public. 4. In C.S.S. Motor Service v. Madras State [ AIR 1953 Mad 279 ] a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that all public streets and roads vest in the State, but that the State holds them as trustee on behalf of the public. The members of the public are entitled as beneficiaries to use them as a matter of right and this right is limited only by the similar rights possessed by every other citizen to use the pathways. The State as trustees on behalf of the public is entitled to impose all such limitations on the character and extent of the user as may be requisite for protecting the rights of the public generally. 5. In Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [ AIR 1954 SC 728 ] a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court agreed with the statement of law made by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Para.24 of the decision in C.S.S. Motor Service [ AIR 1953 Mad 279 ]. 6. In Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [ (1989) 4 SCC 155 ] a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that the primary object of building roads is undoubtedly to facilitate people to travel from one point to another. 7. In Centre for Consumer Education v. State of Kerala [ 2019 (3) KHC 957 ] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with W.P.(C) No.27011 of 2012, a public interest litigation, raising questions touching upon the safety of passengers commuting through public roads in the State. One of the reliefs sought for in that writ petition is a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents therein to initiate steps to remove all types of obstruction in roads and road margins and recover the costs from those responsible for erecting the same, and also to erect and establish proper destination boards and traffic signals in the public roads leading to Sabarimala. In the said writ petition, the State Police Chief filed a counter affidavit, through the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, admitting a large number of unauthorised advertisements and hoardings in the National Highways as well as in the State Highways, blocking the line of sight of drivers and also causing distraction to the drivers. In the said writ petition, the State Police Chief filed a counter affidavit, through the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, admitting a large number of unauthorised advertisements and hoardings in the National Highways as well as in the State Highways, blocking the line of sight of drivers and also causing distraction to the drivers. In the counter affidavit, it has also been stated that all District Police Chiefs have been alerted to take appropriate actions to see that advertisement/sign boards which are obstructing the vision of the road users shall be removed by seeking the assistance of other Departments. Reports have been called for from the District Police Chiefs regarding the cases registered in connection with the erection of illegal boards or flex boards on road margins, etc. After considering the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Director General of Police, the Division Bench in the judgment dated 21.02.2013 in W.P.(C) No.27011 of 2012 opined that the State and its law and order administration are on their toes in ensuring the safety of the users of the National Highways and State Highways as also other roads, particularly, in the context of the danger caused by the unauthorised erection of the hoardings and advertisement boards. The Division Bench observed that the grievance of the petitioner Society stands redressed for the present and the State would act in accordance with the statements in the counter affidavit made on behalf of the State Police Chief. But looking at the totality of the circumstances, the Division Bench deemed it fit to direct the 3rd respondent Transport Commissioner, to take appropriate action through the officers deployed towards the end of law and order administration and ensure that the various enactments referred to in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Police Chief and in Ext.P1 petition filed by the petitioner therein are implemented with the zeal and promptitude the situation calls for and in appropriate circumstances and situations; co-ordinate with the Local Self Government Institutions to prohibit the erection of advertisement boards and hoardings completely or partially according to the need of a particular location. In the judgment dated 21.02.2013, the Division Bench noted the stand of the National Highways Authority of India that the Local Self Government Institutions have absolutely no authority to sanction erection of hoardings or advertisement boards on National Highways. 8. In the judgment dated 21.02.2013, the Division Bench noted the stand of the National Highways Authority of India that the Local Self Government Institutions have absolutely no authority to sanction erection of hoardings or advertisement boards on National Highways. 8. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. State of Kerala and another [2015/KER/22239] - order dated 10.06.2015 in SSCR No.22 of 2014 - a Division Bench of this Court directed the State Government, in particular the Public Works Department, and the National Highways Authority of India to commence and complete the maintenance of the entire road network in the State before the 1 s t week of November every year. The Division Bench directed the State Government to grant administrative sanction for the maintenance of the road at least 3 months before the commencement of the Mandala-Makaravilakku festival. The Director General of Police, the Road Safety Commissioner, the Chief Engineers of the Public Works Department and National Highways Authority of India and also the Local Self Government Department are directed to comply with the directions of the Division Bench in Centre for Consumer Education [ 2019 (3) KHC 957 ] in relation to the roads leading to Sabarimala. 9. In Shani Johnson v. Kochi Corporation [ 2019 (3) KHC 928 ] this Court noticed that ‘Policy on Roadside Advertisements’ formulated by the Indian Road Congress, vide IRC:46-1972 was introduced when it was noticed that advertisements can often distract the attention of drivers of motor vehicles and in that case a public hazard or nuisance. They may also obstruct the view of the drivers of fast-moving vehicles and are then a public danger. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in its letter No.F.No.RW/NH-33044/18/ 2016/S&R(R) dated 07.09.2016 noticed that despite the Ministry's policy of not allowing roadside advertisements, hoardings on National Highways which cause distraction and is also one of the causes of accidents on National Highways, advertisement hoardings have generally been noticed along the National Highways. In the said decision, this Court directed the Project Director of the National Highway Authority of India and also the concerned officers in the Kerala Public Works Department dealing with National Highways and other Centrally Sponsored Schemes to ensure strict compliance of Circular dated 16.05.2002 and also the letter dated 07.09.2016 of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. 10. In the said decision, this Court directed the Project Director of the National Highway Authority of India and also the concerned officers in the Kerala Public Works Department dealing with National Highways and other Centrally Sponsored Schemes to ensure strict compliance of Circular dated 16.05.2002 and also the letter dated 07.09.2016 of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. 10. In Shali v. State of Kerala [ (2019) 5 KHC 118 ] this Court held that, as per Para.4.2 of the Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities [IRC:103-2012], an effort should be made to create such conditions that pedestrians are not forced to walk in unsafe circumstances, and that the motorists respect the position of pedestrian. The Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities have the approval of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH). Every local authority in the State is bound to provide pedestrian facilities on public roads in conformity with these guidelines. 11. In Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri. Darmasastha Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala [2019 (5) KHC SN 27 : 2019/KER/48273] this Court held that, in view of the Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities formulated by the Indian Roads Congress, vide IRC:103-2012, no parking of vehicles is legally permissible on the ‘footpath’, which is the portion of right of way of road used for the movement of pedestrians. Any such parking of vehicles on the footpath of public streets will force pedestrians to walk in unsafe circumstances, which will adversely affect the mobility and safety of all pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility. 12. In exercise of the powers under Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in supersession of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989, the Central Government made the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, vide G.S.R.634(E) dated 23.06.2017. Regulation 5 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 deals with duties of drivers and riders. As per clause (4) of Regulation 5, the driver and the riders shall take special care and precautions to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly and the differently-abled persons. Regulation 22 deals with stopping and parking. As per sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be parked on footpath, cycle path and pedestrian crossing. Regulation 39 deals with pedestrian crossing, footpath and cycle track. Regulation 22 deals with stopping and parking. As per sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be parked on footpath, cycle path and pedestrian crossing. Regulation 39 deals with pedestrian crossing, footpath and cycle track. As per sub-clause (3) of Regulation 39, when a road is provided with a footpath or cycle track, no vehicle shall drive on such footpath or track, except on the directions of a Police Officer in uniform or where traffic signs permitting some movements have been displayed. 13. In Sivaprasad v. State of Kerala [ 2020 (6) KHC 373 ] this Court held that, in view of the law laid down in Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri. Darmasastha Temple Advisory Committee [2019 (5) KHC SN 27], once the National Highways/State Highways are constructed as per the standards and guidelines prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress, it has to be maintained as such without any encroachment on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities provided as per such standards and guidelines. The primary object of building roads is to facilitate people to travel from one point to another and carriage of goods. Footpaths or pavements are public properties which are intended to serve the convenience of the general public. They are not laid for private use and indeed, their use for a private purpose frustrates the very object for which they are carved out from portions of public streets. The main reason for laying out pavements is to ensure that pedestrians are able to go about their daily affairs with a reasonable measure of safety and security. That facility, which has matured into a right of the pedestrians, cannot be set at naught by allowing encroachments to be made on the pavements. The removal of encroachments on the footpaths or pavements over which the public has the right of passage or access cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unfair or unjust. The State, being the principal protector of the rights of its citizens, keeping in view the doctrine of public trust, should not permit any encroachments on the footpaths or pavements. Nobody has got the right to erect any structures on roads and the State is not an exception. The National Highways and State Highways constructed by acquiring private property and by using public funds can be used only for the travelling needs of the public. Nobody has got the right to erect any structures on roads and the State is not an exception. The National Highways and State Highways constructed by acquiring private property and by using public funds can be used only for the travelling needs of the public. It cannot be converted for other collateral purposes like erection of statues and memorials. 14. Section 5 of the Kerala Public Ways (Restriction of Assemblies and Processions) Act, 2011 deals with regulation of conduct of festivals, assemblies, meetings, etc. In Basil Attipetti v. State of Kerala [ 2012 (2) KHC 85 ] a Division Bench of this Court declared clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Kerala Public Ways (Restriction of Assemblies and Processions) Act, 2011 as violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens conferred under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by virtue of the operation of Article 13(2) of the Constitution. The Division Bench upheld the constitutional validity of clauses (a) and (d) of subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Act, subject to limitations and restrictions on permissions to be granted, as stated in Paras.9 to 11 of the judgment. 15. In Union of India v. State of Gujarat [order dated 18.01.2013 in SLP(Civil) No.8519 of 2006] the Apex Court issued a general direction to the effect that, from the date of that order the Government of Kerala shall not grant any permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. The Apex Court made it clear that the said order shall not apply to the installation of high-mast lights, street lights or construction relating to electrification, traffic, toll or for the development and beautification of streets, highways, roads, etc., and relating to public utility and facilities. The above order was made applicable to all other States and Union Territories and the concerned Chief Secretary/Administrator is directed to ensure compliance of that order. The said order of the Apex Court was in relation to the permission granted by the State of Kerala, by an order dated 07.09.2011, for installation of statue of late Shri.N. Sundaran Nadar, Ex-Deputy Speaker of Kerala Legislative Assembly near to Neyyantinkkara-Poovar Road in the curve turning to KSRTC bus stand, Neyyatinkkara in Kannyakumari National Highway. 16. The said order of the Apex Court was in relation to the permission granted by the State of Kerala, by an order dated 07.09.2011, for installation of statue of late Shri.N. Sundaran Nadar, Ex-Deputy Speaker of Kerala Legislative Assembly near to Neyyantinkkara-Poovar Road in the curve turning to KSRTC bus stand, Neyyatinkkara in Kannyakumari National Highway. 16. By the order dated 05.07.2013 in SLP(Civil) No.8519 of 2006, the Apex Court directed the States and Union Territories to state on affidavit the position with regard to unauthorised structures including unauthorised religious structures on public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places as existing on 30.06.2013 in their respective States and the steps taken up to 30.06.2013 for removal of such unauthorised structures. In the said order, the Apex Court noticed the submission of the learned counsel for the States of Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Punjab and Rajasthan that they have already filed their affidavits. By the order dated 05.07.2013, the Apex Court directed the States of Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Punjab and Rajasthan to file fresh affidavits indicating the position as on 30.06.2013. 17. By the order dated 31.01.2018 in SLP(Civil) No.8519 of 2006 and connected cases, the Apex Court ordered that the implementation of its orders should be supervised by the concerned High Courts. Consequently, the Apex Court remitted the matters to the respective High Courts for ensuring implementation of orders in an effective manner. While ordering transmission of concerned records to the respective High Courts, the Apex Court ordered that, the interim orders wherever passed shall continue, until the matters are considered by the High Courts. In case any clarification is required, it would be open to the parties to approach the Apex Court. The High Court will have the jurisdiction to proceed in contempt of any of the orders passed by the Apex Court. 18. Section 198A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inserted by Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force with effect from 01.09.2019, vide S.O. 3147(E) dated 30.08.2019, deals with failure to comply with standards for road design, construction and maintenance. As per sub-section (1) of section 198A, any designated authority, contractor, consultant or concessionaire responsible for the design or construction or maintenance of the safety standards of the road shall follow such design, construction and maintenance standards, as may be prescribed by the Central Government from time to time. As per sub-section (1) of section 198A, any designated authority, contractor, consultant or concessionaire responsible for the design or construction or maintenance of the safety standards of the road shall follow such design, construction and maintenance standards, as may be prescribed by the Central Government from time to time. As per sub-section (2), where failure on the part of the designated authority, contractor, consultant or concessionaire responsible under sub-section (1) to comply with standards for road design, construction and maintenance, results in death or disability, such authority or contractor or concessionaire shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs.1,00,000/- and the same shall be paid to the Fund constituted under Section 164B. 19. As per sub-section (3) of Section 198A of the said Act, for the purposes of sub-section (2), the court shall in particular have regard to the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (g), namely, (a) the characteristics of the road, and the nature and type of traffic which was reasonably expected to use it as per the design of road; (b) the standard of maintenance norms applicable for a road of that character and use by such traffic; (c) the state of repair in which road users would have expected to find the road; (d) whether the designated authority responsible for the maintenance of the road knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the road to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to the road users; (e) whether the designated authority responsible for the maintenance of the road could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the road before the cause of action arose; (f) whether adequate warning notices through road signs, of its condition had been displayed; and (g) such other matters as may be prescribed by the Central Government. As per Explanation, for the purposes of Section 198A, the term ‘contractor’ shall include sub-contractors and all such persons who are responsible for any stage in the design, construction and maintenance of a stretch of road. 20. As per Explanation, for the purposes of Section 198A, the term ‘contractor’ shall include sub-contractors and all such persons who are responsible for any stage in the design, construction and maintenance of a stretch of road. 20. In Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2021/KER/46194 : 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 13182] – order dated 16.11.2021 in SSCR No.9 of 2021 – a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, noticed that despite the enactment of the Kerala Public Ways (Restriction of Assemblies and Processions) Act, 2011 by the State Legislature and the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the decisions referred to supra, the State of Kerala and the law enforcement machinery have not taken necessary steps to ensure strict enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions and also the Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities formulated by Indian Roads congress [IRC:103-2012], in order to prevent encroachment of any nature, in any form, either temporary or permanent, on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities on public roads, since any such encroachment will adversely affect the mobility and safety of all pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility. By the order dated 16.11.2021, this Court directed respondents 2 to 4 in SSCR No.9 of 2021 to take necessary steps to ensure strict compliance of the directions contained in the decision referred to supra by all concerned, in letter and spirit, by maintaining the roads and pedestrian facilities in the State strictly in conformity with the relevant standards and guidelines, without any encroachment whatsoever on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities provided as per such standards and guidelines, in order to ensure the safety of most vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly and the differently-abled persons. 21. 21. Pursuant to the direction contained in the order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 08.06.2021 in W.P.(C) No.11886 of 2021 - Trivandrum Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. State of Kerala and others - in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, whereby the State of Kerala was directed to file a counter affidavit explaining the steps already taken to ensure strict enforcement of the orders of the Apex Court, including the order dated 18.01.2013 in SLP(C) No.8519 of 2006, the decision of this Court in Shivaprasad [ 2020 (6) KHC 373 ], etc., the relevant statutory provisions and also the Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities formulated by Indian Roads Congress [IRC:103-2012], in order to prevent encroachment of any nature, in any form, either temporary or permanent, on the right of way or pedestrian facilities on public road, the 1st respondent therein has issued a Circular dated 16.08.2021, whereby the Director of Urban Affairs and the Director of Panchayats are directed not to grant any permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places, except for installation of high mast lights, street lights or construction relating to electrification, traffic, toll or for the development and beautification of streets, roads, highways, etc. and relating to public utility and facilities in connection with the direction of the Apex Court. The Director Urban Affairs and the Director of Panchayats are directed to instruct Local Self Government Institutions accordingly and shall regularly monitor removal of unauthorized constructions from the roads as per the provisions in the respective statutes in compliance with the directions contained in the orders referred to therein. 22. Once roads are constructed as per the standards and guidelines prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress, it has to be maintained as such without any encroachment on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities provided as per such standards and guidelines. Footpaths are not intended for stocking articles for trade or for the display of goods by traders, in front of their shops or establishments. Similarly, footpaths are not intended for the purpose of holding campaigns, demonstrations, etc., by political parties and other organisations, by causing any obstruction whatsoever to the free movement of pedestrians. Footpaths are not intended for stocking articles for trade or for the display of goods by traders, in front of their shops or establishments. Similarly, footpaths are not intended for the purpose of holding campaigns, demonstrations, etc., by political parties and other organisations, by causing any obstruction whatsoever to the free movement of pedestrians. No political party or organisation can be permitted to encroach upon footpaths or right of way of public roads, in connection with any such protest, demonstrations, etc., by erecting any temporary structures on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities, forcing pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility to walk in unsafe circumstances. Showing scant regard to the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, political parties and various organisations are permitted to put up structures on footpaths and even on the right of way on public roads, all over the State. The protesters/agitators having political backing are even permitted to lay carpet and place chairs on the footpath. On account of such encroachments, pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility are forced to walk through the right of way of public roads, in unsafe circumstances. In view of the provisions under clause (4) of Regulation 5 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, the driver and the riders shall take special care and precautions to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly and the differently-abled persons. As per sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be parked on footpath, cycle path and pedestrian crossing. 23. In S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [ (2018) 13 SCC 516 ] the Apex Court held that all States and Union Territories are expected to implement the Road Safety Policy with all due earnestness and seriousness. In Para 94.13 of the said decision, in the context of ‘Lane Driving’, the Apex Court held that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has already issued the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 which should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly. 24. In Para 94.13 of the said decision, in the context of ‘Lane Driving’, the Apex Court held that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has already issued the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 which should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly. 24. The service roads provided on the side of National Highway and bypass constructed as per the Manual of Specifications and Standards prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress in IRC:SP:73-2007 or IRC:SP:84-2009 cannot be converted as a parking space for commercial or other establishments, religious institutions, etc., or even for putting up temporary structures in connection with festivals in temples, churches, mosques, etc. or in connection with any protest by any political parties or for putting up temporary structures as resting place for headload workers, etc., or for putting up bus shelters by political parties or by any other organisations. Such service roads are for vehicular traffic, which has to be maintained as such, in conformity with the relevant standards prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress. The State holds public roads as a trustee on behalf of the public. By permitting encroachments on public roads by way of temporary structures on the right of way or on the pavements or on the pedestrian facilities provided on such roads, on political considerations or otherwise, the State Government or the concerned Local Self Government Institution is committing breach of trust. Any failure on the part of the designated authorities, contractor, consultant or concessionaire in maintaining the safety standards of public roads will attract the penal consequences provided under Section 198A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 25. In view of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and the law laid down in the decision referred to supra, the roads constructed as per the standards and guidelines prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress has to be maintained as such, without any encroachment on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities provided as per such standards and guidelines. No political party, organisation or trader can be permitted to encroach upon footpaths or right of way of public roads, in connection with any protests, demonstrations or trade, by erecting any temporary structures on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities or by stocking articles for trade forcing pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility to walk in unsafe circumstances. Since the State holds public roads as a trustee on behalf of the public, the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent State and the Local Self Government Institutions in preventing such encroachments upon footpaths or right of way of public roads will amount to breach of trust. Any failure on the part of the designated authorities, contractor, consultant or concessionaire in maintaining the safety standards of public roads will attract the penal consequences provided under Section 198A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The 1st respondent State through the Enforcement Wing in the Motor Vehicles Department and the Police shall implement with all due earnestness and seriousness, sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of Regulation 22 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, which prohibits parking of vehicles on footpath, cycle path and pedestrian crossing and also other provisions in the said Regulations which cast a statutory duty of the drivers and vehicles riders of motor vehicles to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly and the differently-abled persons, in view of the direction issued by the Apex Court in S. Rajaseekaran [ (2018) 13 SCC 516 ] that all States and Union Territories are expected to implement the Road Safety Policy with all due earnestness and seriousness. It is ordered accordingly. 26. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the upgradation work of Punalur-Ponkunnam, having a distance of 30 kms. is going on. The said road will be made traffic-worthy, by rectifying the potholes within two days. A consolidated status report of the road network leading to Sabarimala shall be placed on record, on 15.11.2022. List this matter on 15.11.2022.