27 September 2004
Supreme Court
Download

CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs NAMIT KUMAR

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT,PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR
Case number: C.A. No.-003700-003700 / 1999
Diary number: 11814 / 1998
Advocates: KAMINI JAISWAL Vs KAVEETA WADIA


1

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

2

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.               

3

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.  

4

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.