Vaibhav Balbhim Deshpande v. Dcp Traffic Pune Police Traffic Branch And ORS

CRPIL 16-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 16 OF 2016 Vaibhav Balbhim Deshpande .. Petitioner V/s DCP Traffic, Pune Traffic Police Branch & Ors.

.. Respondents Mr. Prashant Dharandale for the petitioner.

Ms. Shyamali Gadre i/b Little & Co. for respondent no.4. Mr. D.R. More for respondent no.2.

Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State.

Mr. A.P. Kulkarni for respondent no.3.

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & M.S. SONAK, J.

DATE : 1st DECEMBER 2016 P.C.:

In principle, the petitioner is before this Court in a public interest litigation expressing his novel idea of reducing the traffic problems in the city of Pune by introduction of odd and even number vehicles to be on roads visa vis the number of days in a week. In other words, to impose a ban like what happened in other parts of the country.

2.

According to the petitioner, in spite of sending 6-8 letters along with photographs, news and affidavits of evidence to the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, the Bombay High Court has not taken serious note of the same to initiate the matter. ABS

CRPIL 16-2016 3.

In the perception of the petitioner, the idea of introduction of odd and even number plate vehicles vis-a-vis the days on which they have to run on the road is very ideal in order to have an ideal transportation system to reduce the traffic congestion on the road. However, this has to be decided by the persons who are meant for taking policy decision and not the Courts. If the administration imposes any such restriction based on the number of vehicles if such an act is arbitrary and not constitutional, then we appreciate the public coming before this Court expressing the menaces or calamities that can happen on account of introducing such ban. The perception of the petitioner may be appreciated as one of the remedies to reduce the congestion on road, however we cannot compel by an order or writ to implement the policy which is not yet taken as a policy decision by the authorities concerned. 4.

In that view of the matter, since the matter has to be decided altogether on a different floor, we direct the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities with representation and create public awareness to appreciate his perception so that the policy makers could consider his idea and then implement it. 5.

The PIL is disposed of with the above observations. (M.S. SONAK, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE ABS