HC rejects Admn plea on traffic directive

Earlier, holding that even though the Chandigarh Administration had the right to move the Supreme Court against the orders of the High Court, Justice Swatanter Kumar said the Administration8217;s plea for more time was not in larger public interest and also did not contain reasons as to justify the grant of extension in implementing the HC orders.

Justice Swatanter Kumar was one of the judges on the division bench, which had issued the directions with regard to traffic regulation in UT, Punjab and Haryana. The other judge, Justice Sat Pal, has since retired.

quot;Since all the states concerned had put in a lot of effort and many directives had already been implemented, in case the directives were now stayed, it would be nothing but a reversal of the efforts put in,quot; the judge observed, adding that quot;the grant of time at this stage would cause injustice to all concernedquot;.

The court also observed that the two applications filed by the Administration were contradictory as one of them sought time for filing an SLP and the other prayed for extension of time for implementing the orders.

During the arguments in the case, the judge observed that quot;strictly speaking, contempt had already been committed by the officers concerned as the time for implementation of the HC judgment had already expiredquot;.

The court substantiated the rejection of UT8217;s plea by observing that quot;the HC orders were not pronounced without the participation of any of the states and that it had taken at least three years for the court to finalise the directions, which were primarily part of the recommendations of the high-powered committee constituted by it and other committees, and thus the same should not be undonequot;.

The Chandigarh Administration had sought 90 days8217; time for the implementation of HC directives, to enable it to file an SLP in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, adjourning the review petitions filed by the SGPC and Tohra, the court directed the states concerned to file a reply within four days, together with placing on record any notifications/rules issued under the Motor Vehicles Act regarding any exemptions to women from wearing helmets.

The court observed that quot;since the issue concerned many, it was important to ascertain that in case the notifications in this regard and the court judgment were contrary to each other, which one would prevailquot;. Besides, it would also be ascertained whether the states have powers to issue such notifications, the court observed.

As regards the issue of demolition of two shops in Sector 24, the court adjourned the matter to Tuesday, on the request of counsel for the Chandigarh Administration. The court expressed anguish over the non-compliance of its repeated orders on the demolition of shops.

When the Administration sought time for moving SC against the demolition, the court observed: quot;We have waited for 15 days, as the shops were to be demolished forthwith as per directions of July 9 and still nothing has been done about this unauthorised structure8230;the file stinks.quot;

Meanwhile, according to sources, the Administration has already prepared an SLP for filing in the Supreme Court with regard to these shops.

The court also adjourned till August 3 the review petition of the UT schools, seeking exemption from plying without permits, and directed the parties to file a reply by then. A review petition of transporters for extension of time for removal of black glasses from buses was also rejected, even as their plea for restraining trucks and commercial vehicles carrying pilgrims and otherwise was disposed of by directing transporters to approach the high-powered committee set up by the court.