MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE first writ petition being D. B. Civil writ petition No. 6073/93 was filed by petitioner Mahendra Lodha in the year 1993 as a Public Interest Litigation. THE petitioner has highlighed chaotic traffic conditions and vehicular pollution in the city of Jodhpur. THE writ petition is based on the information collected from the Research made by one Shri Avdesh Kumar under the guidance of Professor M. B. Pathak. According to the petitioner, 1,14,076 vehicles were registered with Regional Transport Officer, Jodhpur in the year 1992. It is further averred that there is an increase of 14 to 15 thousand vehicles per year. THE gases which are emitted by the vehicles are Carbon Monoxide-64%, Hydrocarbons 22%, Oxides of Nitrogen-12% besides Sulphur dioxide, lead compounds and suspended particulate matter, smoke etc. It is further averred that 72. 5% of the Cars registered with RTO, Jodhpur emit 3% Carbon Monoxide; 63% of the three wheelers emit more than 4. 5% Carbon Monoxide, 25% of the scooters emit more than 4. 5% Carbon Monoxide and 70% of Petrol driven vehicles emit more Hydrocarbons than permissible limits. THE toxic effect of these gases over the human body has been pointed as under:- (i) Eyes: Because of emission and inhalation of the gases aforesaid the people develop chronic conjunctivities which contribute in the early development of cataract and glaucoma. (ii) ENT : THE emissions result in causing pharynjitis, and even cancer of larynx. (iii) Respiratory System: It causes bronchitis, Asthma, Emphysema, and lung cancer etc. (iv) It also causes headache, irritability, loss of concentration on work for exhaustion. (v) Alergic condition can develop and all these diseases lead to diminution in the capacity of work of the people. (vi) THE aforesaid facts clearly show as to how the emissions from motor vehicles when not controlled can harm human being. It is submitted that extra ordinary increased of vehicles, smoke, vapour, spark, ashes, grit and oil emissions have totally pouted the environment of city of Jodhpur. It is also submitted that greatest villians of peace are Tampos and Trucks as they emit smoke, vapour, spark, ashes, grit as also oil in total disregard of the provisions made u/r. 112 to 116 of the Motor Vehicle Rules. THE things have reached to the stage where one is almost inhailing poison on all the busy roads of Jodhpur moreso on the High Court Road, Sojatigate, Station Road, M. G. Hospital Road, Jalorigate, Chopasni Road, Residency Road, Station Road etc. So far as City buses are concerned, it is submitted that they have become a life hazard because they are driven with great speed on the busy roads of city of Jodhpur. THE petitioner has sought direction for the strict compliance of the Rule 112 to 116 of the Motor Rules. A further direction has been sought to fix the speed governers limiting the speed of the city buses to 30 kms. per hour.
(2.) IN reply to the writ petition, an affidavit has been filed by Sh. Ram Gopal Maheshwari, D. T. O. (Writs), as back as in the year 1995. It is admitted that vehicular traffic in the city of Jodhpur has been increased tremendously. However, it is denied that District Administration is oblivious or has not taken steps for the alleged situation. It is also submitted that the Administration has already imposed one way traffic regulation in Jodhpur in peak hours in evening from 4. 30 PM to 8. 30 PM. It is also submitted that regular checking is also done by the authorities of the police and Motor Vehicles Department for checking pollution made by such registered vehicles. It is further submitted that notification No. GSR 933 (E) dated 28. 10. 1989 has been issued under Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules for speed governers to restrict the speed limits of vehicles. D. B. C. W. P. No. 1041/2000 is a joint writ petition filed by 22 persons. All the petitioners are permit holders for plying their vehicles on the different city buses route in the city of Jodhpur. The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of the fact that they are plying their vehicles after having pollution under control certificate (hereinafter referred to be as ``puc'') with all other relevant documents, police without following the mandatory procedure laid down u/r. 116 (1) and without hearing anything in writing are directing the drivers to submit the vehicles for conducting the test to measure the standards of emissions in any one of the authorised testing Stations and to produce the certificate to the concerned authority within 7 days from the date of cond- ucting the check. They have also given list of vehicles seized. The controversy involved in the writ petition is with regard to the authority of respondents to seize the Motor vehicles for the impugned offences. The petitioner has sought declaration that the seizure of the motor vehicles as void. A further direction has been sought to restrain the police and traffic authorities from seizing the vehicles u/sec. 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In our view, the second writ petition filed by Ram Singh and Ors. has been wrongly labeled as a public interest litigation. However, a reference has been made to some of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules which touches the general problem pertaining to vehicular pollution and have made certain remedial suggestions. The writ petition is treated as P. I. L. only to that extend, without entering into the question, if a petition can partly be treated as P. I. L. , we only say that we are not expres- sing any opinion with respect to merit of the contentions raised and relief claimed. A reply to the writ petition has been filed supported by an affidavit of Sh. Ramnath Saran, Dy S. P. (Traffic), Jodhpur. So far as personal grievance of each of the petitioners is concerned, it is submitted that they have an alternate remedy under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure as also contained in Sec. 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also submitted that joint writ petition is not maintainable as each petitioners have different cause of action. Their vehicles have been seized on different grounds. However, so far as public interest part is concerned, it is admitted that city of Jodhpur is facing great hardship and inconvenience on account of various traffic problems which need be considered by this Court while exercising the extra ordinary power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that joint writ petition is not maintainable as each petitioners have different cause of action. Their vehicles have been seized on different grounds. However, so far as public interest part is concerned, it is admitted that city of Jodhpur is facing great hardship and inconvenience on account of various traffic problems which need be considered by this Court while exercising the extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the effective directions need be given for controlling and regulating the traffic of the city of Jodhpur as well as for controlling air pollution effectively by conducting the test to measure the standards of emission in any one of the authorised testing station and also for obtaining PUC. It is further submitted that effective directions are liable to be made for dealing with the cases of contravention of provisions of the Rules of 1989. It is pointed out that at present 473 city buses and 436 tempos are plying on the main roads of city of Jodhpur. It is suggested that number of city buses and tempos on the main roads must be restricted to 250, so that problem of heavy and irregular traffic on the main roads of city can be solved. It is also pointed out that State Government has constituted a Committee in March 2000 under the Chairman-ship of Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur for periodical renewal of traffic management and control in the city of Jodhpur. The Committee is monitoring the traffic conditions in the town. It is also pointed out that Committee is coordinating the work of different department of the Government and Local bodies working for improving the traffic condition. It is also pointed out that suggestion has also been sought from the general public for smoothing the vehicular traffic. In this direction, a work-shop was held in police-line, Jodhpur on 20. 5. 2000. The work-shop was presided by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur. It was attended by the Collector, Distt. Magistrate, Jodhpur, Distt. Super intendent of Police, NGO's and other persons interested in such public issues. On the basis of suggestions, an improvement plan has been prepared. This Court vide order dated 26. 7. 2000 directed the Distt. Collector, Superintendent of Police and Regional Transport Officer, Jodhpur to consider and pass appropriate orders and frame scheme in consultation with the transport operators, Lorry owners, various owners of the three Wheelers Association, Transport Association etc. The Court directed to convene the meeting within a period of one month to consider (a) not to permit the heavy vehicles during certain peak hours within the city limit; (b) to prepare a scheme for gradual elimination of smoke-emitting vehicles, (c) to fix speed-governers on different transport vehicles and (d) to consider the regulation of traffic. This Court gave liberty to the Committee to invite suggestions from various other organisation and also from the private and public Lorry Association and also State Carriage Operators, city-buses Operators etc. etc. It is reported that in pursuance of the direction of this Court, a meeting was held in the Chamber of Distt. Collector, Jodhpur on 21. 8. 2000. The meeting was attended by Sh. Rajat Mishra, Collector, Jodhpur; Dr. Bhupendra Singh, S. P. , Jodhpur and Sh. K. L. Meena, Chief Executive Officer, Jodhpur Nagar Nigam, Sh. Bajrang Lal Sharma, R. T. O. , Jodhpur, Sh. Mahesh Sharma, Secretary UIT, Jodhpur, Sh. R. S. Saharan, Dy. S. P. (Traffic), Jodhpur. 14 office bearers of the Motor Vehicle Union i. e. Sh. Karan Singh, Sh. Hari Singh, Sh. Raj Khan, Sh. Jitendra Singh, Sh-Dhan Raj, Sh. Multan Singh, Sh. Khima Ram, Sh. Ranjeet Singh, Sh. Ajit Singh, Sh. Jitendra Singh, Sh. Arjun Parihar, Sh. Ashok Acharya, Sh. Sadique Khan, Sh. Liyakat Ali also attended the meeting. A scheme has been submitted for the approval of this Court. It is pointed out that during the period 1. 1. 2000 to 31. 7. 2000, 352 vehicles were seized on the ground of pollution, over speed, improper fitness etc. , but all the vehicles were released by the Subordinate courts. A fine imposed by the Court is generally paltry sum and the vehicle Operators commit such offences with impunity. Thus there is hardly any deterrent effect of these proceedings. The statement of challans made by the traffic police shows that during April to August of current year, 10661 challans against owners of trucks, city buses, tempos, autos, two wheelers and other vehicles have been filed.
(3.) WE have heard Mr. M. Mridul, Sr. Advocate, Sh. B. L. Maheshwari, Adv. , Sh. R. L. Jangid, Addl. Advocate General, Sh. Vineet Kothari, Adv. and Sh. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel for the parties. The Indian Constitution contains specific provisions on environmental protection. The provisions regarding the directive principles of State policy and the fundamental duties explicitly enunciated the national commitment to Protect and improve the environment. The judicial interpretation has strengthened the Constitutional mandate. Now it is well established that the Courts have recognized the right to wholesome environment as being implicit in the fundamental right to life. The slow poisoning by the polluted atmosphere caused by environmental pollution and spoilation is regarded as amounting to violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in various public interest litigation having noticed to vehicular pollution and chaotic traffic condition in major cities of India particularly Delhi, has issued directions for the protection of environment and proper management and con- trol management and control of traffic. The directions issued in those cases provide sufficient guidelines to deal with the problems in the city of Jodhpur with respect to vehicular pollution and chaotic condition of the traffic. Reference may be made to M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. (1), M. C. Mehta etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2), M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. (3), M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. ;