CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.versusNAMIT KUMAR AND ORS.

A               CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.
                               v.
                      NAMIT KUMAR AND ORS.

                             SEPTEMBER 27, 2004

B   [ARIJIT PASAYATAND PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR, JJ.]

         Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 21, 32, 136 and 226.

           Public Interest Litigation-Environmental pollution-Air and noise
    pollution-High Court issued following directions: (a) High-Powered
c   Committee's suggestions to be treated as directions by High Court; (b)
    parking charges; (c) wearing of helmets; (d) parking space; (e) one-way
    traffic; (/) utilization of transport undertaking vehicles; (g) black film
    on glasses; (h) demolition of booths; (i) removal of advertisement
    facing highway, main roads and side roads and (j) provision of
    signboards-Effect of-On appeal, directions modified by Supreme Court-
D
     Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, R. 100(2)-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,
    S. 85-A-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S. 129-Motor Vehicles (Protective
    Headgears) Rules, 1980-Punjab Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, R. i93-
    Chandigarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, R.193.

E        Environmental law-Environmental Pollution-Air and noise
    pollution-Notice to affected persons-Necessity of-Held: While dealing
    with issues like environmental pollution and road hazards there is no need
    for giving notice to all persons affected

         In all these appeals challenge was to some of the directions given
F   by the High Court while dealing with,a public interest litigation filed by
    an ·advocate and two doctors. Their main grievance was that there was
    immense air and noise pollution, .traffic congestion and unsystematic
    functioning of the various authorities. It was specifically highlighted
    that there was an increase in the number of vehicular accidents, which,
G   resulted from absence of proper traffic control.

         The High Court issued certain directions and also stipulated that
    the suggestions made by the High~Powered Committee should be treated
    as directions of the High Court.

H        On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that before the
                                       764
        CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. NAMIT KUMAR                          765

recommendations and suggestions of the High-Powered Committee were               A
treated to be directions of the High Court, an opportunity be granted to
the appellants; that the Direction stipulating that all persons including
women should wear helmets while driving two wheelers violated Rule 3
of the Motor Vehicles (Protective Headgears) Rules, 1980 and Rule 193
of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 and Rule 193 of the Chandigarh
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 which exempted Sikh women from wearing
                                                                                 B
helmets; that if parking was not permitted, it would mean that even old
and disabled persons, children and ladies have to walk a long distance
to go to their residential houses; that there was no difficulty in introducing
one-way traffic system in institutional and commercial Sectors but liberty
should be given to the appellants to make relaxation taking into account         c
the relevant factors; that the booth, were not on the main roads but
were on the diversion used when the roads were not operational; that it
would not be possible to implement the direction regarding the provision
of signboards immediately and that the State Government would do it
in a phased manner.
                                                                                 D
     Disposing of the petition, the Court

    HELD: 1. Suggestions of High-Powered Committee. Whenever any
suggestion is received from the High-Powered Committee the appellant-
Administration shall be given an opportunity to have its say and thereafter
the High Court shall pass necessary orders either accepting the                  E
recommendations or modifying the same suitably, if necessary. (768-F-G]

      2. Parking Charges: Considering the difficulties highlighted the
direction is modified to the extent that it shall be for the appellant-
Administration to fix the quantum of parking charges taking into account
all the relevant factors. (768-B]                                                F

     3. Wearing of helmets: If any exemption is granted to any person
including Sikh women from any of the Motor Vehicles Rules relating to
different States or areas or under any Statutory Rule the same shall
operate notwithstanding the directions of the High Court that all persons
including women shall wear helmets. (770-B]                                      G

     4. Parking Space: The High Court can consider whether any viable
arrangement can be worked out taking into account suggestions made
by the appellant Administration and other parties before the High Court.
                                                                   (769-E-F)     H
    766                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A         5. One-way traffic: The direction is modified to the extent that proper
    traffic arrangem~nts shall be made. If the appellant-Administration wants
    to relax the one-way traffic system in any Sector, the same can only be done
    by indicating the special features, which warrant such a departure. The
    reasons shall be recorded and placed before the .tfigh Court so that it can be
    examined whether the reasons indicated justify the departure. [768-D-E]
B
         6. Utilizatio;i ofChandigarh Transport Undertaking Vehicles: It would
    be appropriate for the appellant-Administration to file an application before
    the High Court indicating the factual details so that the Court can decide as
    to whether any modification of the direction is called for. [769-B-C]
c
         7. Black films on glasses: The direction is modified to the extent that
    while carrying out the directions, the mandate of ·Rule 100(2) of the
    Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 shall be kept in view. This shall be
    in addition to any security requirement as may be laid down by the law
    and order enforcing agencies. [770-C, DJ
D
         8. Demolition of booths: The materials, which were not produced
    before the High Court, shall be brought to the notice of the High Court
    so that necessary orders can be passed after consideration. It is made
    clear that no opinion has been expressed on- the merits of the rival
E   contentions. [770-E-F]

          9. Removal of advertisements: Though while dealing with issues like
    environmental pollution and road hazards there is no _need for giving
    notice to all the persons affected, it shall be open to the State Government
    or licensee to brin_g to the notice of the High Court that there is no
F   safety hazard involved. The High Court shall consider them, if raised,
    in the proper perspective. [771-A-B]
           .
           10. ·Provision of Signboards: In view of the submission of the State
    Government that it would_ implement the direction in a phased manner,
    it is' open to the State Government to_ approach the High Court for
G
    modification of the direction. [771-C]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3700of1999.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.98 of the Punjab and Haryana
H   High Court in C.W.P. No. 7639 of 1995.
   CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. NAMIT KUMAR [PASAYAT, J.]767

                                   WITH                                          A
    C.A. Nos. 6308, 6310, 6311-12, 6309, 6313 of2004.

    Har Dev Singh, Ms. Inklee Barooh, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Aditya Kr.
Chaudhary, Neeraj Kr-. Jain, Dinesh Kumar Masant, Mrs. Madhu
Moolchandani, H.M. Singh and Ms. Shabana Saifi for the Appellants.               B
     R.K. Kapoor, M.K. Verma and A.A. Khan for the Applicants.

     Somiran Sharma and Manoj Swamp for the Respondents.

    S.S. Jauhar, R.S. Suri, Mahabir Singh, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Mrs. Rani           C
Chhabra and Prem Malhotra for the appearing parties.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    ARIJ_IT PASAYAT, J. : Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos, 143~2/98,
14639/98, 76-77/99, 13994/99 and 13720/99.                                       D

      In all these appeals challenge is to some of the directions given by the
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a public inter~st litigation
filed by an advocate and two doctors. Their main grievance was that there
was immense air and noise pollution, traffic congestion and unsystematic         E
functioning of the various authorit~es. It was specifically highlighted that
there was increase in the number of vehicular accidents which resulted from
absence of proper traffic control.

     Civil Appeal No. 3700/1999 has been filed by the Chandigarh
Administration. The appeals corresponding to SLP (C) No. 13994/99 and            F
SLP (C) No. 14639/98 relate to a direction for use of helmets by ladies.
Appeals corresponding to SLP (C) Nos. 76-77/99 have been filed by the
Government of Haryana taking the stand that some of the directions cannot
be implemented_ due to financial stringency.

      The Chandigarh Administration has called in question some of the           G
directions which we shall deal with individually.

      Direction no. IO relates to levy of parking charges. The High Court
directed that the concerned authorities shall provide parking space and
properly utilize the existing space in and around the commercial and public      H
    768                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   places. Additionally, it was directed that any person who enjoys the parking
    facilities should be charged keeping in view the period for which such vehicle
    was parked in the prescribed parking area.

          Learned counsel for the appellant-Chandigarh Administration submitted
    that though the direction is being implemented in letter and spirit, some
B   difficulties arise while fixing parking charges. Considering the difficulties
    highlighted, we modify the order to the extent that it shall be for the
    Chandigarh Administration to fix the quantum of parking charges taking into
    account all relevant factors.

C          So far as direction no.23 is concerned, the same relates to introduction
    of one way traffic in Sectors 24, 17 and institutional and commercial sectors.
    It is submitted that wherever there is a need for introducing one way traffic
    system, the same will be introduced. There is no difficulty in introducing the
    system in institutional and commercial sectors but liberty should be given to
    the Administration to make relaxation taking into account the relevant
D   factors. We modify the direction to the extent that proper traffic arrangements
    shall be made. If the Administration wants to relax the one way traffic system
    in any sector, the same can only be done by indicating the special features
    which warrant such a departure. The reasons shall be recorded and placed
    before the High Court so that it can be examined whether the reasons
E   indicated justify the departure.

          So far as long term directions are concerned, in direction no.2 it has
    been stipulated that whatever suggestions are made by the High Power
    Committee shall be treated as directions of the High Court. It was submitted
    that before these recommendations and suggestions are treated to be directions
F   of the High Court, an opportunity be granted to the Administration to have
    its say. We consider the prayer to be reasonable. We modify the direction
    to the extent that whenever any suggestion is received from the High Power
    Committee the Administration shall be given an opportunity to have its say
    and thereafter the High Court shall pass necessary orders either accepting the
G   recommendations or modifying the same suitably, if necessary.                      >-

         One of the major difficulties highlighted by the Chandigarh
    Administration relates ~o the utilization of vehicles of Chandigarh
    Transport Undertaking. It was pointed out that to make the undertaking
    commercially and financially viable, operation of inter•state routes is a
H   necessity. It is submitted that a number of vehicles plying inside the territory
   CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. NAMIT KUMAR [PASAYAT, J.)769

are sufficient to meet the local demands. In any event, it is submitted that       A
the need for catering to the needs of travelling public can also be considered
while making the undertaking financially and commercially viable.

      Learned counsel for respondent no. l who was writ petitioner submitted
that the High Court while passing directions had taken note of the ground
realities and no modification is necessary. Considering the rival contention       B
we feel that it would be appropriate for the Chandigarh Administration to file
an application before the High Court indicating the factual details so that the
Court can decide as to whether any modification of the direction is called
for.

      One of the directions which was also termed as impracticable related
                                                                                   c
to the direction that parking space will be provided in all the sectors but no
vehicle should be permitted to be parked in any other area more particularly
on the main road or internal roads of the sectors.

      Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner submitted that the        D
direction which is no.15 has to be read with the condition which notes that
sufficient lane parking space can be used in all the areas wherever it is
possible and workable.

      Learned counsel for the appellant-Chandigarh Administration submitted
that if parking is not permitted, it would mean that even old, disabled persons,   E
children, and ladies have to walk long distance to go their residential house.
We feel the High Court can consider whether any viable arrangement can
be worked out taking into account suggestions made by the Chandigarh
Administration and other parties before the High Court.
                                                                                   F
      One of the directions which has been assailed by several appellants
relates to direction no.14 regarding use of helmets. The exemption has only
been extended to Sikh women while driving. All others including women are
required to wear helmets. Stand of the appellants is that such direction is
contrary to several statutory prescriptions. Particular reference has been made
to Section SSA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short the 'Old Act') and        G
Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the
'New Act'). It appears that Clause 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Protective
Headgears) Rules, 1980 exempts Sikh women from wearing helmets. Reliance
is also placed on Rule 193 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and
Rule 193 of the Chandigarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 to contend that Sikh         H
    770                   su.PREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   women care exempt from wearing the helmets, and, therefor~ the High Court
    could ·not have given the dire.ction contrary to the suggestion.
               •
           It appears _that the Rules. were not brought to the notice of the High
     Court. We, therefore, direct that if any exemption is granted to any persm:i
     including Sikh women from any of the Motor Vehicles Rules relating to
B    different States or areas or under any Statutory Rule the same shall operate
     notwithstanding the directions of the High Court that all persons including
     wom'en ~hall wear helmets.

           One other direction which has been assailed relates to the use of black
c    films on the glasses. It is submitted that Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
     (in short. 'Central Rules') provide for the,measure to be taken fa such cases .
    .We: ~n_d that sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the said Rules ·deals with the is~ue.
     We, therefore, modify the direction of the High Court to the extent that while
     canving out the directions, the mandate· of sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 shail be
     kept in view. This shall be in addition to any security requirement as may
D    be laid down by the law and, order enforcing agencies.•

           'The direction has ·been given for demolition. of booths. Learned counsel
     for ·the Chandigarh Administration submitted that these are not on the main
     road but were on.the diversion used when the rpads were not operational.
E . .Learn~d coun;el for respondent no. l submitted that recorps were produced
   . before the High Court for which strong exception was taken.
                   0
          We feel that the materials which were not produced before the High
     Court shall be brought to the notice of the High Court so that necessary orders
     can be passed after consideration. We make it clear that we have not
F    expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions.

           Appeals r;lating to SLP (C) Nos. 76-77 /99 are by the State of Haryana.
      Direction nos. 20 and 24 were sought to be modified as the staff position is
      not adequate even to meet the normal functioning. We permit the State of
      Haryana to move the High Court for modification and place materials in
G     support of the stand. The High Court shall consider the request in its proper
    - perspective and pass ~ecessary orders.

          It has been submitted that directions have been given to remove all
     advertisements facing the highway, main roads and the side roads. The stand
H    of the Government is that the ·same would result in huge loss of revenue by
   CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. NAMIT KUMAR [PASAYAT, J.]771

way of license fees for the licenses which have been granted for the purpose.      A
It was pointed out that persons who would be affected were not heard.
Though while dealing with issues like environmental pollution and road
hazards there is no need for giving notice to all the persons affected, it shall
be open to the State Government or licencee to bring to the notice of the High
Court that there is no safety hazard involved. The High Court shall consider       B
them, if raised, in the proper perspective.

      One of the directions also relates to the providfr:g of sign boards. The
learned counsel for the State submitted that it will not be possible to
implement the direction immediately and the State Government would do it
in a phased manner. It is open to the State Government to approach the High        C
Court for modification of the direction.

      In appeal relat~ng to SLP(C) No. 13720/99, the direction is for fulfilling
all.conditions in terms of Section 66 of the New Act. It was submitted that
certain institutions using the vehicle are exempt from permit in terms of sub-
section (3)(h) of Section 66 of the New Act. But we find that. sub-section         D
(3) of Section 66 has been deleted w.e.f. 11.8.2000. Therefore, the plea
relating to exemption has no substance. The .appeal relating to SLP 13720/
99 is dismissed.
                                                     .
     All other appeals .are disposed of as indicated above. There wilJ.l')e no     E
order as to costs.

v.s.s.                                                    Appeals disposed of.