Back
2017 Supreme(Jhk) 846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D.N. PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Abhay Singh, Son of Late Dhurandhar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
I.A. No. 4238 of 2015 with W.P.(PIL) No. 7784 of 2013
Decided On : 10-02-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Kumar
For the Respondents: M/s Jai Prakash, A.A.G., Rishi Pallav, J.C. to A.A.G.
The main legal point established is that when the respondent State has already taken substantial measures in line with the relevant road safety policies, the court may decline to issue further directions.
Headnote:
Road Safety Policy - Public Interest Litigation - National Road Safety Policy, Jharkhand Road Safety Policy - National Road Safety Policy, Jharkhand Road Safety Policy - Sections 1-14, Motor Vehicles Act, Central Motor Vehicles Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions for the implementation of the National Road Safety Policy in Jamshedpur, citing insufficient traffic arrangements and road safety measures. The respondent State authorities had taken steps to reduce traffic congestion and improve road safety, including establishing trauma centers and purchasing ambulances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent State had already implemented various measures in line with the National Road Safety Policy and the Jharkhand Road Safety Policy, and therefore, no further directions were necessary.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should direct the respondent State authorities to implement the National Road Safety Policy in Jamshedpur.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that since the respondent State had already taken significant steps to improve road safety, including implementing the Jharkhand Road Safety Policy, no further directions were required.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the court declined to issue further directions for the implementation of road safety policy in the case.
D.N. Patel, J.
1. As requested by Counsel for the petitioner, the prayers made in this petition at paragraph 1(d) is replaced by the amended prayer as mentioned in Paragraph 3.d of I.A. No. 4238 of 2015.
2. Thus, main prayers for which this writ petition has been argued out now reads as under:
“1.(a) For the direction upon the respondents to sane the people residents of Jamshedpur from traffic death traps as, there is no sufficient traffic arrangement in the area of Jamshedpur in the area of Jamshedpur or, no sufficient over the bridges built by the state govt. although, the ciry given maximum revenue to the state due to its industrial activities.
(b) For the direction upon the respondents especially respondent no.6 to clarify its own stand about its contribution through C.S.R. In the traffic improvement as due dilapidated condition of the traffic has caused loss of hundreds of persons.
(c) For the direction upon the respondents to explain before this Hon'ble Court as to whether the respondents have ever created any constructive plan in the form of construction of fly over for smooth movement of traffic to check the death of citizens in the accident in Jamshedpur area.
(d) For the direction to implement National Road Safety Policy, which was approved by the Cabinet in its meeting held on 15.03.10 and talked about major initiatives such as, to promote awareness about road safety issues, to ensures safer road infrastructure by way of designing safer road, encouraging application of Intelligent Transport System etc., to ensure fitment of safety features at the stage of designing manufacture, usage, operation and maintenance, to strengthen the system of driving licensing and training to improve the competence of drivers, to take measures to ensure safety of vulnerable road users, to take appropriate measures for enforcement of safety laws, to ensure medical attention for road accident victims, to encourage human resource development and R & D for road safety & to strengthen the enabling legal, institutional and financial environment for promoting road safety culture in state of Jharkhand, especially upon the National Highways running in this State.”
3. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this petition has been preferred seeking direction to be given to the respondent State authorities to implement in true spirit and letter the National Road Safety policy which has been drafted by the Central Government
4. It appears from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State that sufficient steps have been taken by the respondent State authorities to reduce and minimize traffic congestion in the city of Jamshedpur and better implementation of road safety.
5. It is also submitted by the Additional Advocate General that wherever it is necessary, all sorts of road safety measures has been taken 0-and this has considerably reduced the incidents of traffic accident. It also appears from the counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand that State of Jharkhand has formulated Jharkhand Road Safety Policy, which is in consonance with the National Road Safety Policy.
6. It further appears from the counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand that two trauma centers have also been established, one at Baharagora in East Singhbhum and the second in Nagar Utari, District Garhwa. Moreover, third trauma center is also on the way of completion and the same will be operational very soon in the district of Hazaribagh.
7. It also appears from the facts of the case that more trauma centers are also going to be opened by the State of Jharkhand at Medini Nagar, District Palamau and other districts like Deoghar, Simdega, Giridih, Koderma, Dhanbad, Dumka, Bokaro. Thus, it appears that a good number of trauma centers are going to be opened by the respondent State. Few of them have already been started as stated hereinabove.
8. It also appears from the counter affidavit f
