Traffic Problems In Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court Emphasises Implementation Of Rules, Setting Up Expert Body To Plan Road Infrastructure

While hearing a suo motu PIL pertaining to traffic congestion and its management in Ahmedabad, the Gujarat High Court on Thursday orally flagged certain aspects requiring attention including the implementation of existing rules, identification of an expert body for comprehensive planning of road infrastructure, manpower and use of technology.

The matter arose after a PIL was moved by 20 residents of the city pertaining to the construction of a bridge at Ahmedabad's Panjrapole crossroads which they claimed is leading to reduction of green cover.

In its  August 7 order, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi had taken a "holistic view of the traffic problems being faced by the denizens of the Ahmedabad city because of poor or inadequate road infrastructure and mis-management of traffic", while directing the initiation of a suo motu petition. 

On e-challans and improvement of infrastructure

During the hearing on Thursday Chief Justice Agarwal after hearing the state's submission on an affidavit filed by it orally asked about the manner in which challans were being issued–whether it was an e-challan or in manual form. The senior counsel appearing for the state submitted that both formats were in use, adding that in all places cameras may not be installed. 

At this stage, the Chief Justice orally said, "Why? Like in all big cities there is an infrastructure of e-challan. E challans in physical the offenders simply get away. Then you need one officer to keep a watch. We don't see much improvement on the roads . We understand it takes time but still. I have not seen anyone wearing helmet. People are so complacent they can play with their life but they cannot play with the life of another person...These challans that way not going to help if you are not creating this kind of deterrent that license will be cancelled. In cities like Delhi even Dehradun, no one can ply two wheeler without wearing helmet. Ahmedabad is not a small city".

The state's counsel submitted that this aspect will be looked into and that it shall see that this is followed up. The high court further orally observed that infrastructure has to be improved and technology should be used in the process. 

"We want phase wise implementation of e challan should start. Prepare project report and submit before court. this would ease the process and it would be a deterrent. Because people wont be aware of the camera. If 3 violations of rules, license can be suspended for 10 days, 15 days one month…that is sufficient punishment. These days nobody can afford to do that. Other aspect is about vacancy in police force. We want a road map on how much time it will take to fill up the vacancy," the court orally said. 

Suggestions by Amicus 

During the hearing Advocate Pitamber Abichandani who has been appointed as the amicus curiae in the matter said that the issue had become so mammoth now that some drastic measures may be required. 

"Another limb is even more deterrent effect can be developed. If subsequent series of challans are issued to particular driver, upon a third being issued within gap of one year for example, either insurance premium can be tagged as is done in certain countries where it gets hiked to such a level that people are more careful in breaking the law. Or alternatively some rules to confiscate and a right to redeem…along with penalty which has accumulated of each offence plus an additional penalty. All these aspects can be looked at by some experts physically on the field," the amicus said. 

The high court orally said that there were some studies on road accidents and on Ahmedabad city which is a "highly accident-prone city". It also said that for a comprehensive study of roads, "a wholesome exercise is to be conducted". 

The amicus thereafter listed certain issues which he said would need to be looked into. The first issue he submitted pertains to financing and budgeting which has to be done by the state. The second aspect pertains to an expert body to look into all these aspects; the third pertains to manpower including time-bound recruitment for adequate personnel, training and deployment; fourth is proper study of roads; the fifth pertains to consideration of drainage and waterlogging of roads; and framing of additional rules and modification of rules. The amicus further said that a nodal officer could be also appointed for monitoring and implementation. 

Asking the amicus to put these aspects in a note, the high court orally said, "Out of this the first implementation should be the about the existing rules. You have rules, implement them. For implementation of the rules a deep study is to be made by officer who is filing affidavit. He must know the rule only then he will be able to file. Otherwise what happens is affidavit is coming in way of question and answer. Second is planning. Implement rules immediately then go about planning. For planning of the city identification of expert body is the first step. Then comes question of manpower...Once these issues are taken care of rest of the issues will automatically fall in place". 

The court further said that technology should be used in implementing of all these aspects.

After hearing the matter, the high court listed it for hearing on September 6. 

Background: 

In its August 7 order, the high court had directed the State's Chief Secretary to engage all the concerned officers of the State to take necessary steps to ensure strict compliance with the traffic rules and regulations, specifically for mandatory compliance with the traffic rules to wear the Helmet by two-wheeler riders and also by the pillion rider and further that all police force in the traffic police establishment shall be deployed at the strategic locations to ensure that rash driving and driving on the wrong sides, is curbed; wrong parking of the vehicles on the public roads be curbed.

Taking suo motu cognizance, the high court enhanced the scope of the PIL to include the management of Traffic in Ahmedabad and filling-up of vacancies in the establishment of the traffic police; addressing the issues of poor and inadequate road infrastructure in the city, dangerous turns, improperly planned side roads, exit and entry into the S.G.Highway etc., and feasibility of flyovers, the requirement of service roads, foot-over bridges. 

The high court had in its order further said, "The identification of and marking of Accident-prone-areas shall be carried out to ensure deployment of the traffic police at such points and also to put up a note of caution (as a board) for attention of the riders highlighting Accident-prone-areas". 

Case title: Dharini Shah and Ors. v/s State of Gujarat and Ors. 

and Suo Motu v/s State of Gujarat, Home Department, Through Secretary & Ors.