Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3700 of 1999
PETITIONER:
Chandigarh Administration & Ors
RESPONDENT:
Namit Kumar and Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/09/2004
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
[With CA No..6308/2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14342/98,
CA No.6310/2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14639/98, CA Nos.
.6311-6312/2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 76-77/99, CA
No.6309/2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13994/99 and CA
No..6313/2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13720/99]
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 14342/98, 14639/98, 76-77/99,
13994/99 and 13720/99.
In all these appeals challenge is to some of the directions given
by the Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a public
interest litigation filed by an advocate and two doctors. Their main
grievance was that there was immense air and noise pollution, traffic
congestion and unsystematic functioning of the various authorities. It
was specifically highlighted that there was increase in the number of
vehicular accidents which resulted from absence of proper traffic
control.
Civil Appeal No. 3700/1999 has been filed by the Chandigarh
Administration. The appeals corresponding to SLP (C) No. 13994/99 and
SLP (C) No. 14639/98 relate to a direction for use of helmets by
ladies. Appeals corresponding to SLP (C) Nos.76-77/99 have been filed
by the Government of Haryana taking the stand that some of the
directions cannot be implemented due to financial stringency.
The Chandigarh Administration has called in question some of the
directions which we shall deal with individually.
Direction no.10 relates to levy of parking charges. The High
Court directed that the concerned authorities shall provide parking
space and properly utilize the existing space in and around the
commercial and public places. Additionally, it was directed that any
person who enjoys the parking facilities should be charged keeping in
view the period for which such vehicle was parked in the prescribed
parking area.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Chandigarh Administration
submitted that though the direction is being implemented in letter and
spirit, some difficulties arise while fixing parking charges.
Considering the difficulties highlighted, we modify the order to the
extent that it shall be for the Chandigarh Administration to fix the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
quantum of parking charges taking into account all relevant factors.
So far as direction no.23 is concerned, the same relates to
introduction of one way traffic in Sectors 24, 17 and institutional and
commercial sectors. It is submitted that wherever there is a need for
introducing one way traffic system, the same will be introduced. There
is no difficulty in introducing the system in institutional and
commercial sectors but liberty should be given to the Administration to
make relaxation taking into account the relevant factors. We modify
the direction to the extent that proper traffic arrangements shall be
made. If the Administration wants to relax the one way traffic system
in any sector, the same can only be done by indicating the special
features which warrant such a departure. The reasons shall be recorded
and placed before the High Court so that it can be examined whether the
reasons indicated justify the departure.
So far as long term directions are concerned, in direction no.2
it has been stipulated that whatever suggestions are made by the High
Power Committee shall be treated as directions of the High Court. It
was submitted that before these recommendations and suggestions are
treated to be directions of the High Court, an opportunity be granted
to the Administration to have its say. We consider the prayer to be
reasonable. We modify the direction to the extent that whenever any
suggestion is received from the High Power Committee the Administration
shall be given an opportunity to have its say and thereafter the High
Court shall pass necessary orders either accepting the recommendations
or modifying the same suitably, if necessary.
One of the major difficulties highlighted by the Chandigarh
Administration relates to the utilization of vehicles of Chandigarh
Transport Undertaking. It was pointed out that to make the undertaking
commercially and financially viable, operation of inter-state routes is
a necessity. It is submitted that a number of vehicles plying inside
the territory are sufficient to meet the local demands. In any event,
it is submitted that the need for catering to the needs of traveling
public can also be considered while making the undertaking financially
and commercially viable.
Learned counsel for respondent no.1 who was writ petitioner
submitted that the High Court while passing directions had taken note
of the ground realities and no modification is necessary. Considering
the rival contention we feel that it would be appropriate for the
Chandigarh Administration to file an application before the High Court
indicating the factual details so that the Court can decide as to
whether any modification of the direction is called for.
One of the directions which was also termed as impracticable
related to the direction that parking space will be provided in all the
sectors but no vehicle should be permitted to be parked in any other
area more particularly on the main road or internal roads of the
sectors.
Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner submitted that
the direction which is no.15 has to be read with the condition which
notes that sufficient lane parking space can be used in all the areas
wherever it is possible and workable.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Chandigarh Administration
submitted that if parking is not permitted, it would mean that even
old, disabled persons, children, and ladies have to walk long distance
to go their residential house. We feel the High Court can consider
whether any viable arrangement can be worked out taking into account
suggestions made by the Chandigarh Administration and other parties
before the High Court.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
One of the directions which has been assailed by several
appellants relates to direction no.14 regarding use of helmets. The
exemption has only been extended to Sikh women while driving. All
others including women are required to wear helmets. Stand of the
appellants is that such direction is contrary to several statutory
prescriptions. Particular reference has been made to Section 85A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short the ’Old Act’) and Section 129
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ’New
Act’). It appears that Clause 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Protective
Headgears) Rules, 1980 exempts Sikh women from wearing helmets.
Reliance is also placed on Rule 193 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989 and Rule 193 of the Chandigarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 to
contend that Sikh women are exempt from wearing the helmets, and,
therefore the High Court could not have given the direction contrary to
the suggestion.
It appears that the Rules were not brought to the notice of the
High Court. We, therefore, direct that if any exemption is granted to
any person including Sikh women from any of the Motor Vehicles Rules
relating to different States or areas or under any Statutory Rule the
same shall operate notwithstanding the directions of the High Court
that all persons including women shall wear helmets.
One other direction which has been assailed relates to the use of
black films on the glasses. It is submitted that Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short ’Central Rules’) provide for the measure
to be taken in such cases. We find that sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of
the said Rules deals with the issue. We, therefore, modify the
direction of the High Court to the extent that while carrying out the
directions, the mandate of sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 shall be kept in
view. This shall be in addition to any security requirement as may be
laid down by the law and order enforcing agencies.
The direction has been given for demolition of booths. Learned
counsel for the Chandigarh Administration submitted that these are not
on the main road but were on the diversion used when the roads were not
operational. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that records
were produced before the High Court for which strong exception was
taken.
We feel that the materials which were not produced before the
High Court shall be brought to the notice of the High Court so that
necessary orders can be passed after consideration. We make it clear
that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival
contentions.
Appeals relating to SLP (C) Nos. 76-77/99 are by the State of
Haryana. Direction nos. 20 and 24 were sought to be modified as the
staff position is not adequate even to meet the normal functioning. We
permit the State of Haryana to move the High Court for modification and
place materials in support of the stand. The High Court shall consider
the request in its proper perspective and pass necessary orders.
It has been submitted that directions have been given to remove
all advertisements facing the highway, main roads and the side roads.
The stand of the Government is that the same would result in huge loss
of revenue by way of license fees for the licenses which have been
granted for the purpose. It was pointed out that persons who would be
affected were not heard. Though while dealing with issues like
environmental pollution and road hazards there is no need for giving
notice to all the persons affected, it shall be open to the State
Government or licencee to bring to the notice of the High Court that
there is no safety hazard involved. The High Court shall consider
them, if raised, in the proper perspective.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
One of the directions also relates to the providing of sign
boards. The learned counsel for the State submitted that it will not be
possible to implement the direction immediately and the State
Government would do it in a phased manner. It is open to the State
Government to approach the High Court for modification of the
direction.
In appeal relating to SLP(C) No. 13720/99, the direction is for
fulfilling all conditions in terms of Section 66 of the New Act. It was
submitted that certain institutions using the vehicle are exempt from
permit in terms of sub-section (3)(h) of Section 66 of the New Act.
But we find that sub-section (3) of Section 66 has been deleted w.e.f.
11.8.2000. Therefore, the plea relating to exemption has no substance.
The appeal relating to SLP 13994/99 is dismissed.
All other appeals are disposed of as indicated above. There will
be no order as to costs.