HC lists auto-rickshaw case after 2 weeks

In the matter related to improving traffic conditions and controlling illegal plying of auto-rickshaws, the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Justice, R S Jha and Justice, Sanjay Dwivedi has said that, it is constrained to observe that inspite of the State being granted repeated opportunities to take effective steps to improve the traffic conditions, control illegally plying auto-rickshaws, formulation of proper routes, mentioning of route numbers, limiting the number of auto-rickshaws by taking the flow of traffic into consideration, cancel over-lapping permits granted to several auto-rickshaws on the same route on which public service buses are plying, non mentioning of the number of the route at a prominent place on the auto-rickshaws as well as mentioning the routes on the auto-rickshaws in bold letters, taking action against the auto-rickshaws that have modified their vehicles and for removing the modification, including steps taken for cancellation of permits, non-issuance of fresh permits till the exercise of traffic flow and number of auto-rickshaws required, etc. is not completed and all other related issues have not been complied by the authorities as a result of which the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Rules as well as the other provisions of law are being blatantly violated under the very nose of the State.

The report also indicates that the State is not taking or is unable to take effective steps to control traffic. The division bench added that “In such circumstances, in order to prevent further mishaps, accidents and to prevent putting the life of persons including school children in danger, this court may not be left with any option, but to order stop plying the auto-rickshaws and to issue other such orders, in case the State fails to perform its duties by taking effective steps. It is observed that, in case such a situation ultimately comes up before this court, the State itself would be responsible for the same as, inspite of being given time repeatedly, it has failed to take effective steps. However, as the Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the State is taking action in right earnest to control and regulate the situation and is going to take effective steps immediately, which would be evident on the streets and that a report in this regard would be submitted before this court, the State is granted a further period of two weeks time to do so.

As prayed, list immediately after two weeks to enable the Deputy Advocate General to submit a report.” During the hearing, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that they have filed an action taken report. The report filed before this court gives details of the places where hoardings have been installed; the list of action taken by them under the Motor Vehicles Act; steps taken regarding route allotment; colour coding, etc; route indicators affixed on auto-rickshaws and details of the auto-rickshaw stand which have been directed to be constructed and completed within a month. Deputy Advocate General in the report has also mentioned that the State has now set up an Intelligent Traffic Management System for which a huge control room along with monitors, which oversee traffic in the city through security cameras has been set up. He submits that the State also wants to take effective steps to see that the auto-rickshaws do not violate the permit or deviate from the route that have been assigned to them or use modified vehicle, etc. and if they do so, they shall be automatically picked up by the security cameras and auto-generated orders of challan would be issued.

Deputy Advocate General fairly states that the report in respect of the orders passed by this court from time to time is incomplete and that, several other steps need to be taken up for the purposes of implementing the provisions of the law, the Rules as well as for ensuring public safety. The petitioner submits that he has filed a response to the compliance report filed by the respondents in which he has given details of the several orders passed by this court, which have not been complied with by the respondents. He has also pointed out the various steps that are required to be taken up by the authorities under the provisions of law for improving traffic conditions and preventing violation of the law, but no steps in this regard have been taken by the authorities. Deputy Advocate General submits that he shall file a report giving point wise compliance of the directions issued by this court on various dates in the present case, in the other cases as well as in respect of various orders passed by the Supreme Court relating to modification of vehicle, traffic control, etc.