Courts should not interfere with policy decisions of the government in traffic regulation, and traffic control is the domain of the Traffic Police.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a writ of mandamus, order or direction to be issued to the Respondents to remove the blockades which have been put on the crossings of Mathura Road preventing a right turn while coming from the additional building of the Supreme Court of India either to the main building of the Supreme Court of India or to the High Court of Delhi. The prayers made by the Petitioner, by way of the instant PIL, reads as under:

"(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the respondents to remove the blockades which have been put on Mathura Road intersections preventing right turn while coming from additional building of the Supreme Court of India to either the main building of the Supreme Court of India or to the Delhi High Court.

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or directions to the respondents identify make appropriate arrangements and changes on the roads throughout NCT of Delhi so that no common motorist who passes through the places like Roundabout near Krishi Bhawan and Rail Bhawan does not violate traffic rules due to confusions which arises there if a motorists approach the roundabout from the side of Janpath through Raisina Road.

(c) Issue any other appropriate Writ, order/orders and/or direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. It is stated by the Petitioner, who is by profession a practising Advocate, that Advocates, who commute by car from the Supreme Court of India to the High Court of Delhi, have to appear in both the Supreme Court of India and in the High Court on the same day. It is submitted by the Petitioner that due to barricades at all the crossings on Mathura Road, the distance of about 300 meters to 400 meters while travelling from the additional building of Supreme Court to the main building of the High Court has become more than 5 kilometers which is not only time consuming but also a wastage of fuel.

3. It is stated that the decision of the Delhi Traffic Police to restrict the movement of vehicles by putting barricades at the crossing/traffic signal on Mathura Road for an indefinite period of time is arbitrary and unjust and in fact causes hurdles in the administration of justice. It is stated that this decision has not been intimated to the Apex Court or to this Court. It is stated that the Bar Associations of the Apex Court as well as of the High Court have not been taken into confidence before taking this decision.

4. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Parties and perused the material on record.

5. This Court can take a judicial notice of the fact of the substantial increase in road traffic in the city in the last few years. This Court can also take judicial notice of the fact of a number of cars that are parked on the roads in front of the High Court and in the lanes alongside this Court, which causes a traffic hindrance. Traffic control is the sole domain of the Traffic Police. It is well settled that Courts do not run the country and it is up to the administration to take decisions for smooth functioning of the Government. The Apex Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664 has held that Courts should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or functions. Paragraph Nos.232 and 233 of the said Judgment reads as under:

"233. At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power the court should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or functions. The courts cannot run the Government nor can the administration indulge in abuse or non-use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under the Constitution casts on it a great obligation as the sentinel to defend the values of the Constitution