- (1.) IN this matter, a report has been filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur by the learnedcounsel Mr.R.S.Saluja; and another report has been filed by Mr. Jamvant Gurjar, the learned Government Counsel on behalf of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic-East), Jodhpur.
(2.) IN this PIL matter, where essentially the disturbed and mismanaged traffic system of the City of Jodhpur has been of prime concern, earlier suo motu cognizance was taken on the problem by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Later, the matter being of PIL, was assigned to this Division Bench. We had, in the earlier hearings on this matter, essentially expected of the authorities concerned to carry out their duties and responsibilities. On 31.05.2012, an assurance was stated by all the concerned that serious efforts would be put on continuous basis and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing in the matter assured that within seven days, substantial results would be available. Then, on 03.07.2012, the amicus curiae submitted that after the last hearing of the matter, some work had, of course, been executed but he had noticed certain shortcomings and was in the process of preparing a comprehensive report.We deferred the matter to 12.07.2012. On 12.07.2012, we granted the respondents some time to go through the reports submitted by the amicus curiae and to take all corrective measures. During the course of submissions in this matter today, the amicus curiae stated their reservations on several aspects; and we expressed desirability of all the officers concerned to adhere to the requirements of their duties. It also appeared that the Traffic Branch of the Police was probably lacking in proper planning. Having regard to the circumstances, we asked the learned Government Counsel to call the DCP (Traffic), who indeed once appeared before the Court on 31.05.2012 when above-noticed assurance was stated by all the concerned. Then, Mr. Rahul Prakash, the DCP (Traffic), appeared in the second session sitting of the Court. After putting a few questions to him, it appeared that he has not taken stock of the situation and has not dealt with the matter with the required seriousness, particularly when the answers to our queries were either of uncertain nature or of shifting the burden to other agencies/departments. Similarly, it appeared that the Municipal Corporation had also been wanting in adherence to all its duties. Mr.Nawal Kishore Rathore, the District Transport Officer, Jodhpur present in Court was also put to some questions about the number of auto rickshaws, city buses and their regulations, including the aspect of the pollution control. His replies too had been vague and uncertain.
(3.) DURING the course of submissions, Mr.Pankaj Sharma, one of the amicus curiae, made a submission that an appeal has been published in the newspaper whereby the respondents have suggested to the public about the orders passed by this Court for traffic management. When we posed the question to the DCP (Traffic) present in Court as to what order has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the response from the DCP (Traffic) had been that he or his office did not publish any such appeal in the newspaper.Since the statement made by the amicus curiae, a responsible officer of the Court, was being contradicted by the DCP (Traffic), we, in the first place, took exception in the DCP (Traffic) attempting to do so. Mr.Pankaj Sharma has, in the meantime, called for and produced before us the newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika' Jodhpur Edition dated 18.07.2012 carrying such an appeal, published at page No.15. It was rather surprising to find that the DCP (Traffic) expressed ignorance about an appeal, said to have been published by his own department and that relates to this very matter in which, he is supposed to be directly answerable as the person in-charge of the traffic in the City of Jodhpur. Upon our taking exception to the response by the DCP (Traffic) and for his wrongly contradicting the amicus curiae, who is an officer of the Court, it was submitted on his behalf that he would submit an unconditional apology. Then, what has been submitted before us in the name of unconditional apology itself carries 'ifs' and 'buts' in the mannerthat 'if the honourable Court comes to the conclusion that advertently or inadvertently disrespect has been caused to the Court due to response of the deponant to the honourable Court regarding appeal published in the news-paper......' Upon our again taking exception to this, the learned counsel Mr.R.S.Saluja,who is otherwise appearing for the Municipal Corporation, advised the DCP (Traffic) in the Court and thereafter, an unconditional apology has been submitted in his handwriting by the DCP (Traffic) for whatever transpired during the course of proceedings and for his having contradicted the statement of amicus curiae. ;