Traffic violations: Gujarat HC asks GSLSA to conduct survey on Ahmedabad roads

The HC orally directed the GSLSA to prepare a report on the roads of SG Highway and CG Road, including Stadium Road, Judges Bungalow Road, Dudheshwar Road (Vadaj Circle to Delhi Darwaza) and the stretch from the Navrangpura Cross Road to the Gujarat High Court by observing the traffic violations including “illegal parking, parking done on roads abutting shopping centres, restaurants, party plots, etc, and also wrong side driving…”

The court orally ordered, “The necessary survey shall be undertaken after Diwali between October 29 to November 7. Matter to be listed on November 12…” The court also directed that the report be given to the advocates appearing for the respective parties.
During the hearing, Justice Supehia said that he had personally seen two-wheelers continuing to violate the traffic laws even though it had been “noticed” that the violations of four wheelers had “reduced to some extent”. Justice Supehia orally said, “I personally calculated (at one signal), during the 180 minutes, there were seven violations by two-wheelers. I have also noticed that the number plates are camouflaged by them. The TRB (traffic brigade) jawans are there but they do not get the opportunity to even note down the numbers…”

Justice Supehia further said, “We have seen the plight of the jawans who are there. They are dedicated, I personally think, but look at the public… (the public) think as a matter of right that they can break the traffic laws…”

The Government Pleader assured the court that the authorities would “work harder” and informed the court that after the authorities started detaining vehicles driving on the wrong side, the “overall road sensibility had improved, particularly during Navratri”. The Government Pleader also informed the High Court that traffic was cleared within 8 to 10 minutes at 2 am after a film award show ended on Saturday in the city.

The High Court also orally told the Government Pleader to look into the possibility of “framing a policy” for parking outside eateries, as a quarter of the road was being encroached upon by vehicles parked outside the eateries. The court orally told the government pleader, “Either you come up with a policy as one-fourth of the road is occupied by consumers and there is no accountability…. or (the corporation must) generate revenue from them or remove the encroachment…”

During the proceedings, altercations were witnessed between amicus curiae Senior Advocate Bhaskar Tanna as well as Panchal and G H Virk after Tanna submitted that the situation had not improved but deteriorated.

Stating it to be an “unwanted altercation” between the counsels on the issue or orders passed by the court, the High Court considered the view of advocate Panchal, who opposed the appointment of an amicus in a contempt petition as it was not a Public Interest Litigation. The court ordered that the amicus be relieved from the matter and said that “if required, his assistance will be taken by this court.”