- (1.) SEVERAL officers of various departments were present before the Court on the previous occasions and made assurances that all necessary steps as required by law shall be taken in all earnestness so as to regulate the movement of traffic in the city of Jodhpur and to start with, at least on the 15 main roads in priority.
(2.) ON 25.07.2012, despite noticing failure on the part of the authorities in keeping their words and assurances stated as back as on 31.05.2012, we deferred the matter to this date while believing on the submissions that they had indeed started executing some work in right earnest and would require about 19- 20 days' time to carry out the requirements of their duties so as to ensure smooth flow of traffic in the city of Jodhpur, particularly at the referred 15 main roads. When the matter is taken up today, neither the situation can be said to have improved nor the assurances fulfilled. The learned amicus curiae M/s. Ashok Chhangani, Pankaj Sharma and Vipul Singhvi submit in unison that the authorities have not carried out what was required of them; and even a reasonable part of the assurance to ensure smooth flow of traffic in the city of Jodhpur, particularly at the 15 main roads, has not been fulfilled. The learned counsel Mr. R.S. Saluja, on the other hand, submits on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur that the work is being carried on. The learned Additional Advocate General Mr.G.R.Punia submits on behalf of the other authorities and departments that this is an on-going process and some work has, in fact, been done. The submissions as orally made on behalf of the authorities/departments are of uncertain nature and it is apparent that they are not in a position to assert having attended on all their duties and having carried out major tasks so as to ensure smooth flow of the traffic in the city of Jodhpur. Apart from the above, a strange fact has come to the notice that after the last date of hearing, i.e., 25.07.2012, when we granted about 20 days' time to the authorities to carry out the requirements, even the first meeting of the Traffic Control Board, established under Section 13 of the Jodhpur Development Authority Act, 2009 ('the Act'), took place only on 8th inst. On the last date of hearing, we found that useless paper work was being done by the Jodhpur Development Authority ('JDA') in the name of the meetings of the Traffic Control Board as was apparent from the copy of the minutes of the two meetings dated 23.05.2011 and 28.02.2012. After commenting on the shortcomings and drawbacks relating to traffic control and yet granting time to do the needful, we expected that the Traffic Control Board constituted under Section 13 of the Act would start functioning for the purpose it has been constituted and its proceedings shall not remain mere paper proceedings. What to say of carrying out the requirements, even the meeting of the Traffic Control Board was held only on 08.08.2012.
(3.) WE cannot help deducing that JDA and the Traffic Control Board have particularly shown total disinterest towards the requirements of the traffic control and management. Further, when this matter was taken up in the first session sitting of the Court, one of the learned amicus curiae Mr. Vipul Singhvi submitted his comprehensive report No. IV and, inter alia, asserted that there had not been any such guidelines of the Indian Road Congress, wherein the proposition of fiber speed breakers could fit in. This was essentially in relation to the submissions made on behalf of the authorities on the last occasion in response to the question as to why at all such hazardous speed breakers were put on the roads. Mr. Singhvi also submitted that he made an application under the Right to Information Act on 06.08.2012 to the Information Officer of JDA seeking all the relevant information in relation to the installation of fiber speed breakers that was yet to be answered. When we posed the question in that regard to the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the JDA, he sought instructions from the Officer present in the Court. The Officer, holding the charge of Secretary, JDA instructed that she had not received any such application. Thereupon, the amicus curiae Mr. Singhvi was called upon to show the receipt and he placed for perusal the specific receipt and the counter-foil of the postal order to establish that he had indeed moved the application on 06.08.2012. The learned Additional Advocate General Mr. G.R.Punia, thereupon, sought some time to complete his instructions. Then, the learned counsel Mr. R.S. Saluja was posed the question about the basic task of the Municipal Corporation, of ensuring cleanliness of the city and removal of garbage that itself is one of the obstructions in smooth flow of the traffic apart from being a health hazard. The learned counsel Mr. Saluja prayed for some time to complete his instructions and so also to advice the authorities properly. ;