‘State must provide safe roads’: Jharkhand High Court warns officials of contempt over encroachment, traffic in Hazaribagh

The matter was posted on February 16.

The Jharkhand High Court prima facie agreed with the petitioner who said there was no serious compliance either with our orders. (Image enhanced using AI)

Observations

• The petitioner, in-person, points out that because no serious steps have been taken to remedy the situation, the traffic position has worsened.
• He also refers to certain crimes he alleges occur due to this traffic situation.
• We are prima facie inclined to agree with the petitioner that there is no serious compliance either with our orders.
• No steps have been taken to remedy the situation on the ground.
• This time, we do not want to repeat that this court would be constrained to initiate action under the ‘Contempt of Court Act’, if there is no serious attempt at compliance.
• We have especially involved the senior officers so that they realise the seriousness of the situation.
• Perhaps, they will give no cause to allege any non- compliance.
• To enforce compliance with duties, the court, from time to time, has issued directions, in the firm hope that the situation on the ground would improve.
• However, we find that even though this court had observed that a contempt action would be initiated, at least prima facie, the approach of the authorities is to just vile time.
• Merely issuing notices or memos to junior officers is hardly satisfactory.
• Some senior officers must assume responsibility for ensuring that the situation on the ground improves and that our orders are fully complied with.
• The superintendent of police, Hazaribagh, the deputy commissioner, and the commissioner of the Hazaribagh Municipal Corporation are directed to hold a joint meeting within ten days of today.
• The officials are to consider the status of compliance, and to file detailed affidavits regarding compliance with the various directions issued by us in this petition from time to time.
• Again, we note that we will not appreciate passing on the work to junior officers.
• This time, the three officials, whom we have now directed to file the affidavits, must assume full responsibility and place all facts before this court.
• If any compliances are lacking, these officials may indicate a reasonable time schedule within which the compliances can be achieved.
• In any event, all this process should be completed so that by the next date, the detailed project report is ready and available.
• The officials whom we have directed to file affidavits must also consider the detailed project report (DPR) and indicate the timelines within which, if suggested, the remedial measures would be complied with.
• We see no good ground why our previous directions regard removal of encroachments from parking places or making the CCTV cameras functional should not be complied with.
• Further, the three officers are also directed to file a response to the petitioner’s affidavit dated November 10, 2025, in which the petitioner has given instances of non-compliance or only cosmetic compliance.
• This response should be included in the affidavits, which we have now directed the officers to file.
• The copies of such affidavits should be furnished to the petitioner in-person latest by February 3.
• If the petitioner, who appears in person, wishes to file any rejoinder or comments on these affidavits, he may do so by February 10.

Background

• The PIL filed in 2021 alleged widespread encroachments on parking spaces, non-functional CCTV cameras, lack of effective traffic regulation, and a deteriorating law-and-order situation allegedly linked to traffic congestion in Hazaribagh.
• On August 28, 2025, the court had issued directions to the state authorities and the corporation to remove encroachments from parking areas.
• The court had directed to ensure installation and functioning of CCTV cameras, conduct traffic awareness programmes, and take strict action against traffic violators.
• It noted that 160 CCTV cameras installed in 2017 have become defunct due to the absence of an annual maintenance contract.
• It said that even after repeated directions, no effective steps had been taken to make them operational.
• On October 7, 2025, the court recorded its dissatisfaction with the compliance affidavits, saying that the steps reflected no serious endeavour to implement its orders on the ground.

Arguments

• Additional Advocate General Sachin Kumar, appearing for the state and the municipal corporation submitted that substantial compliance had been achieved with the court’s directions.
• He assured that additional affidavits would be filed.
• Opposing these submissions, the petitioner argued that the steps were “only on paper” and on the ground, there is no real progress.
• He pointed out continued encroachments, traffic congestion, and the continued non-functioning of CCTV cameras despite repeated assurances by the authorities.