S.P. Mahanta vs Union Of India & Ors

Mohammad Rafiq, CJ

This writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation [PIL] under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Mr. S.P. Mahanta, a practicing Advocate of this Court praying for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents, to check traffic congestion, expand and widen roads on both sides, construct flyovers and keep a check on the illegal activities carried out by the overnight parkers.

Mr. S.P. Mahanta, petitioner in person, has contended that he has personally visited various places in and around Shillong city whereby during peak hours, the traffic congestion starting from Madanryting Police Station continues to flow through the National Highway 44 to National Highway 6 in Nongthymmai and further leading upto Fire Brigade, St. Edmunds road, Dhanketi Point, Malki Point, Barik Point, Shillong Civil Hospital, Anjalee Pump, Rhino Point, Lumdiengjri Junction, Mawlai Bridge upto Mawlai Petrol Pump and while travelling via the G.S. Road National Highway 40 from Guwahati, the traffic congestion starts from Mawiong upto Mawlai and the road from Upper Shillong Area leading to the city, the congestion starts from the area where the Shillong Helipad i.e., from 7th Mile upto Rhino Point has caused inconvenience and agony to the public at large. It is further contended that the National Highway roads, State roads and locality roads are damaged with presence of many potholes which narrows down the structure of road and further leads to more traffic congestion. The road leading from Laitkor to Shillong View Point which was usually used by the tourist is left unattended by the State respondents and Indian Air Force authority whereby usage of the road by them had caused further damage to the road without taking any steps to repair and maintain the same. The petitioner in paras 9 and 10 of the petition has given various suggestions for improving the problem of traffic congestion in the city of Shillong.

Mr. A Kumar, learned Advocate General has submitted that there are several reasons for rise in traffic in any town or city such as increase of population i.e. pressure of population on road and also increase in number of private vehicles. There are short and long term measures taken by urban planners to decongest any town. Long term measure would include creating satellite city, shifting of Government offices to new township and short term measure would include widening of the road wherever possible, better traffic management etc. The measures to manage traffic is a continuous and long term process for experts, and therefore, this issue cannot be the subject matter of PIL which is essentially meant for protecting the fundamental rights or poor, downtrodden and hapless people. It is argued that the prayer of the petitioner to widen the roads and build flyovers are linked to policy matters and the Government from time to time has been addressing the said issue by widening the roads and constructing By-Pass within its limited financial constraints. Moreover, flyover and widening of road etc. have never been held to be long term solution to the traffic woes.

On merit, learned Advocate General submitted that the Government of Meghalaya are already seized of the issue of traffic jam and have taken some measures and shall also be taking further measures to ease the traffic jam in Shillong city, many of which are listed in para 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition.

Mr. S.P. Mahanta, the petitioner in person, submitted that since the respondents in para 14 of their affidavit-in-opposition have acknowledged most of the issues, he would be satisfied if this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to also take into consideration of the suggestions given by him in paras 9 and 10 of the memorandum of writ petition.

In view of the specific stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition to tackle the problem of traffic congestion in Shillong city and considering the limited scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, we do not deem it appropriate to issue writ of mandamus as prayed for. However, at the same time, we direct the respondents to also take into consideration of the suggestions given by the petitioner in paras 9 and 10 of the memorandum of writ petition while formulating any policy for easing out pressure of traffic congestion in the city of Shillong.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above aforementioned observations.