AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
Facts in brief are that the respondent Manna Ram Dangi filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Udaipur under Section 22(C) of the
Rajasthan Legal Services Authority Act impleading the District Collector, Udaipur and the District Superintendent of Police, Udaipur as party
respondents praying that the respondents be directed to stop the transit of heavy vehicles form the Kanpur Road to the Pesticides factory road passing
through Sectors 3, 4, 5 and 6 on to the JamarkotdaSavina Road. The prayer was based on an allegation that heavy vehicles were unauthorisedly
accessing the said road which was constructed to serve a residential area and thereby, apart from causing severe noise and air pollution in the colony
and were also posing a threat to the life and health of the public at large. The Superintendent of Police, Udapur filed categoric reply to the application
wherein, it was affirmatively stated that the questioned road was not designated to be used by heavy vehicles and in case, any heavy vehicle was
found in the area by infringing the traffic rules then, appropriate action was being taken by the traffic police against such violators.
The Permanent Lok Adalat issued suo motu notice to the petitioners Municipal Council and the UIT, Udaipur vide order dated 01.12.2016. They were
required to appear in the Permanent Lok Adalat and show cause on 14.12.2016. The Permanent Lok Adalat, accepted the application filed by the
petitioner by order dated 14.12.2016 with the following direction:
“mijksDrkuqlkj vkosnu esa of.kZr iz’uxr fyad lMd o vkoklh; {ks= esa Hkkjh okguksa ds izo’s k ds jksdFkke ds Øe esa catkjk cLrh ,dfyxa
iqjk dh rjQ vk;qDr uxj fuxe] mn;iqj rFkk ,Q-lh-vkbZ-xksnke dh vkjs lfpo] uxj fodkl izU;kl] mn;iqj vUnj vof/k 15 fnol v.Mj gkbV csfj;j yxk;saxsaAâ€
Thereafter, the respondents moved an application for ensuring compliance of the said order before the Permanent Lok Adalat which, in turn, issued a
notice dated 13.02.2017 to the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaipur and so also, the Secretary, UIT, Udaipur directing them to show cause as to
why, proceedings under Sections 166 and 188 IPC should not be initiated against them. Simultaneously, a penalty of Rs.2,000/was imposed against
these officers for non-compliance of the order dated 14.12.2016. These three orders are challenged by the Municipal Council, Udaipur and the UIT,
Udaipur through these writ petitions.
Shri Anurag Shukla learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently urged that ex-facie, the orders passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat are
arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The respondent complainant did not implead either the Municipal Council or the UIT as party respondent in his
application. The Permanent Lok Adalat, out of the blue, acted beyond the scope of the inquiry under Section 22(C) of the Legal Services Authority
Act and issued a suo motu notice dated 01.12.2016 to the Commissioner, Municipal Council and the Secretary, UIT requiring them to show cause by
14.12.2016 as to why they should not be directed to construct an under-height barrier at the questioned location. Even without providing bare breathing
space to these authorities to respond to the notice, the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to pass the order dated 14.12.2016 and directed them to an
erect under-height barrier on the road within a period of 15 days. Shri Shukla urges that the impugned orders are liable to be struck down on two
grounds, firstly that the petitioners herein were not provided appropriate opportunity to file reply to the suo motu notices issued by the Permanent Lok
Adalat and secondary, as categoric reply of the Police Department conveying that the traffic of heavy vehicles was being appropriately regulated and
was not being allowed to access the road in question was totally ignored and an order which which amounts to direct interference in the policy
decision making powers of the autonomous Institution/ Government Authorities was passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat which is beyond the scope
of powers conferred upon it by Section 22(C) of the Rajasthan Legal Services Authority Act.
In furtherance of direction issued by this Court on the previous date of hearing, Shri Shukla has placed on record, the affidavit of the Sub-Inspector,
Traffic Department, Udaipur wherein, it is categorically mentioned that when the application filed by the respondent was being considered, the
Permanent Lok Adalat was apprised by the Police Department that the hazard of traffic through the road in question was being caused because the
construction of under-pass on the National Highway was underway and thus, few of the vehicles drivers were avoiding the highway and tried to take
out their vehicles through the road passing from the residential area. However, now, the construction of the Highway has been completed. Entry of
heavy vehicles in all residential areas of Udaipur is prohibited from 08.00 am. in the morning till 10.00 pm. and thus, no traffic congestion or health
hazard is being caused to the respondent Mannaram or the citizens living in the locality. It is further averred in the affidavit that a high-level committee
constituted for this purpose under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, Udaipur, considered the issue and reached to a conclusion that
construction of the underheight barrier was not feasible at the questioned location because the colonies, referred to in the application, were only
partially developed and thus, a total prohibition of heavy vehicles in the area by putting up an under-height barrier would raise practical and logistic
issues hindering development of the area. However, considering the requirement and need of the public at large, the Committee decided to set up
rumble strip, standard speed breakers and sign boards on the road in question, etc. for ensuring safety and security of all concerned. Shri Shukla has
also filed an additional affidavit of the Executive Officer, Nagar Nigam, Udaipur annexing therewith, minutes of the meeting of the District Level
Traffic Management Committee, Udaipur wherein, all the issues relating to the traffic problems in Udaipur were considered and addressed. Google
map of the area has also been annexed with this affidavit and it is stated that the earlier problem which was being faced by the residents of the locality
regarding unauthorised access of heavy vehicles was owing to construction of under bridge on the Highway which has now been completed and that
now, there is no reason as to why, the heavy vehicles would be taken through the road in relation whereto, the complaint was filed by the respondent.
It is stated that in the entire stretch of highway passing adjacent to the colonies in question, there is no toll both and thus, there is no incentive for the
heavy vehicles to avoid the highway, take a narrow street passing through residential areas. The route for which, the respondent Manna Ram filed the
complaint is a significantly longer and circuitous stretch of road as compared to the highway and thus, there is no rational behind the apprehension
expressed in the application that heavy vehicles would frequent the questioned road. With these references, and specific scientific facts and figures,
Shri Shukla urges that the writ petitions deserve acceptance and the impugned orders passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, which otherwise also
suffer from lack of jurisdiction and were passed in an absolutely arbitrary and high handed manner, should be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, Shri M.L. Purohit, learned counsel representing the respondent Manna Ram, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri
Shukla and urged that the Permanent Lok Adalat has duly and thoroughly looked into the entire factual scenario and considering the matter to be a
public conservancy and importance, pass an absolutely just direction requiring the authorities to set up under-height barrier at the access points of the
road in question. As per Shri Purohit, no interference is warranted in the impugned orders passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat and rather, this Court
should ensure that the petitioners forthwith comply the same.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders
as well as the other material placed on record.
Firstly, this Court is indeed concerned with the hot haste in which the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to pass the impugned orders. Only the Traffic
Department was impleaded as a party by the respondent Shri Manna Ram in his application. The Permanent Lok Adalat appears to have prejudged
the matter and after concluding unilaterally that construction of an under-height barrier was essential on the access points to the road in question, a
notice was issued to the petitioners herein as late as on 01.02.2016 asking them to show cause as to why a direction should not be issued to set up an
under-height barrier at the questioned locations. The petitioners were required to appear in the Permanent Lok Adalat and show cause on 14.12.2016.
On that day, representative of the UIT appeared and prayed for some time to take instructions but the Permanent Lok Adalat straight off and without
waiting for response of the UIT, proceeded to pass the order requiring the local administrative authorities to set up the under-height barriers. Ex-facie,
this approach of the Permanent Lok Adalat was absolutely high handed and arbitrary. The application filed by the respondent was not supported by
any scientific data or statistics. There was no prayer in the application for setting up of the under-height barriers. It was only on basis of its own
whims and caprices that the Permanent Lok Adalat drew its conclusions in the order dated 01.12.2016 whereunder, notices were issued to the
petitioners herein. The Permanent Lok Adalat, while passing the order dated 14.12.2016, drew certain inferences on the basis of the averments made
in the reply of the Traffic Police, Udaipur considering them to be admissions. However, the Traffic Police authorities did not agree to the suggestions
of the complainant and rather, categorically stated that the application should be dismissed because the heavy vehicles were being allowed to access
the road in question in a restricted/controlled manner only. Thus, there being no scientific material or data available with the Permanent Lok Adalat
regarding the prevalent traffic conditions, it should not have issued expansive mandatory direction to the petitioners and that too without providing them
proper opportunity to show cause.
Be that as it may. The petitioners have demonstrated before this Court through the additional affidavit and the Google map placed on record that the
earlier situation of transit of heavy vehicles through the questioned location had arisen owing to some work being undertaken on the adjacent National
Highway. The route regarding which the complaint was made by the respondent Manna Ram is very circuitous and does not give any incentive to a
heavy vehicle for passing through the said location in question looking to the availability of the clear four lane highway with no toll booth in the stretch.
Further, the authorities have clearly mentioned that total prohibition of heavy vehicles would result into half of development of the areas in question is a
factor which has a material bearing on the controversy.
In view of these facts and considering the assurance given by the petitioners in their affidavits that every attempt is being made to ensure supervision
and control of heavy vehicles passing through the questioned location and, keeping in view the fact that the work which was going on the adjacent
National highway has been completed and traffic is flowing freely from the same, this Court is of the firm opinion that now, there remains no occasion
whatsoever for sustaining the directions given by the Permanent Lok Adalat vide the impugned orders to set up the under-height barriers at the access
points in question.
Thus, the writ petitions deserve acceptance and are hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 14.12.2016 and 13.02.2017 passed by the Permanent
Lok Adalat, Udaipur are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the petitioners shall ensure that access of heavy vehicles is controlled and regulated
through the questioned location. Stay applications are disposed of.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.