'Supreme Court Not Meant To Take Care Of Parking' : SC On Plea Against Traffic Woes In Najafgarh

The petitioner had approached the High Court with the grievance that overloaded trucks, tractors, trolleys and dumpers without registration numbers were being permitted to enter into Najafgarh. He also pointed out the issue of illegal parking of vehicles in his plea. The High Court had disposed of the petition holding that no overloaded trucks, tractors etc. were being permitted entry and vehicles parked illegally were removed from the concerned area. The matter came up, in appeal, before the Apex Court. Vide order dated 31.01.2020, it asked the petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Police by way of a representation, which shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai noted that nothing survives in the contempt petition, given the fact that the concerned authorities have considered the petitioner's representation and have taken his suggestions into account.

"This contempt petition was filed for violation of an order passed by this Court directing the authorities to give an opportunity to the petitioner to voice his grievances. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents dated 09.03.2022 that the petitioner has been heard, and his suggestions have been taken into account to take action against the persons who are violating traffic and parking their vehicles in no parking zone."

While disposing of the contempt petition, Justice Rao observed that it is quite impossible for the Supreme Court to look into the nitty gritty of the traffic situation in Najafgarh.

"You have been a good samaritan and achieved whatever you wanted. It is not that we can sit here and take care of the traffic situation in Najafgarh."

As the petitioner further complained about the traffic situation, Justice Rao remarked -

"We have been very indulgent to you. The Supreme Court is not meant for taking care of parking. We saw to it that your representation is heard."

The petitioner urged the Court to take note of the fact that the work has been only done on paper and action has not been taken in reality.

Justice Rao noted -

"Sitting in the Supreme Court it is impossible for us to see what the ground reality is in respect of traffic, in respect of roads, in respect of parking in such a vast country. Since your grievances have been taken note of, they have taken some action we cannot continue with this contempt. It would be difficult for us to monitor. You are in the Supreme Court, not a lower court where they will know what the local situation is."

Justice Rao reminded the petitioner that the limited purpose of contempt was to ensure that the representation made by the petitioner to the concerned authorities is considered. The same being done, he stated, nothing survives in the contempt petition. However, in case of grievances the petitioner was asked to approach the concerned authorities.

"Now, you have to approach the authorities….This contempt was only for the purpose that your representation was not considered and you were not heard. So, there is nothing that remains in contempt."

[Case Title: Ravinder Yadav v. S.N. Shrivastava Contempt Petition (C) No. 671/2021]