Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A.K. YOG, J.
Anand Mohan - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India (UOI) and Others - Respondent
Decided On : 09-03-2007
STATUE - INSTALLATION ON ROAD CROSSING - SAFETY OF PUBLIC - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND PROPERTY - LEGALITY - SENTIMENTS OF PEOPLE - RELEVANCE. Installation of statue/s on crossings/intersections of public roads/street, which jeopardises 'safety' of general public and thus in violation of 'Fundamental right to life and property' conferred under Constitution of India, cannot be accorded legal sanctity on the ground of "sentiments' of a few people/organisation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a PIL seeking a direction to the authorities to remove the statue of Mahatma Gandhi installed on 'Balson Crossing' in Allahabad City, alleging that it was hazardous to traffic movement as it impeded vision of traffic coming from other sides. The authorities opposed the petition, contending that the statue was installed in accordance with the permission granted by the Allahabad Development Authority (ADA) and that it did not obstruct traffic movement. The petitioner also filed an intervention application, seeking to recall the order passed by the Court directing the shifting of the statue.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the installation of the statue on the road crossing was in violation of the Court's earlier order prohibiting the installation of statues on road crossings/junctions in the city of Allahabad. The Court also held that the installation of the statue was hazardous to traffic movement as it impeded the vision of the drivers and was in violation of the safety norms prescribed by the Indian Road Congress and the Traffic Engineering and Transport Planning Manual. The Court further held that the sentiments of the people cannot be a ground for perpetuating an illegal act and that the safety of the people on the road has to be given priority.
Issues: 1. Whether the installation of statue/s on crossings/intersections of public roads/street, which jeopardises 'safety' of general public and thus in violation of 'Fundamental right to life and property' conferred under Constitution of India, can be accorded legal sanctity on the ground of "sentiments' of a few people/organisation? 2. Whether the installation of the statue on the road crossing was in violation of the Court's earlier order prohibiting the installation of statues on road crossings/junctions in the city of Allahabad? 3. Whether the installation of the statue was hazardous to traffic movement as it impeded the vision of the drivers and was in violation of the safety norms prescribed by the Indian Road Congress and the Traffic Engineering and Transport Planning Manual?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the installation of the statue on the road crossing was in violation of the Court's earlier order prohibiting the installation of statues on road crossings/junctions in the city of Allahabad. The Court also held that the installation of the statue was hazardous to traffic movement as it impeded the vision of the drivers and was in violation of the safety norms prescribed by the Indian Road Congress and the Traffic Engineering and Transport Planning Manual. The Court further held that the sentiments of the people cannot be a ground for perpetuating an illegal act and that the safety of the people on the road has to be given priority.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the intervention application and directed the authorities to remove the statue from the road crossing within one month.
A.K. YOG, J.
BACKGROUND
1. The prayer made in the application is as follows:
It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to recall its order dated 08-05-2006 directing to shift the statue of the father of the nation from tri square situated before the Bharadwaj park, Allahabad or pass such other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper without disturbing the statue from its place.
2. Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, Sr. Advocate, submitted that the prayer in the application '...to recall its order dated 08.05.2006...' be treated as prayer to review order dated 08.05.2006 passed by the Bench comprising A. K. Yog and Prakash Krishna, JJ. Consequently, Court passed order dated 31.7.2006 directing this Application to be listed before said Bench of A. K. Yog and Prakash Krishna, JJ. "at the earliest".
3. Meanwhile Applicants, filed two 'Interim Applications' in the above 'Intervention' Application.
4. Civil Misc. Application No. 263541 of 2006 was presented on 6-12-2006 and the prayer made therein is:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that since the directions issued in the instant writ petition are in conflict with the Judgment and orders of the two Division benches namely Judgment and order dated 15-12-2000 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9212 of 1985, Anand Mohan v. Administration of Allahabad and others and Judgment and order dated 31-7-2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40443 of 2006, Sharad Chand Mishra v. State of U. P. the matter be referred to a Larger Bench and papers be laid before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for that purpose.
OR
In the alternative various orders or direction issued in the writ petition be recalled/clarified except those orders or directions which have already been implemented.
5. Civil Misc. Application No. 263539 of 2006 was presented on 6-12-2006 and the prayer made is:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Misc. Application be heard either before the Civil Misc. Intervention Application No. 130413 of 2006 or alongwith that Application.
6. When above Application/s were listed before the Bench (A.K. Yog & Prakash Krishna, JJ the Court passed order dated 8-12-2006; relevant extract is reproduced:
...
When this Application No. 130413 of 2006 came up before Court (Bench comprising A. K. Yog and R.K. Rastogi, JJ) learned Counsel for the Applicant (Sri Jain) objected to the hearing of this application and submitted that this Application (since the Court was to review its earlier order dated 8-5-2006) be heard by the Bench which had passed earlier order dated 8-5-2006, i.e. A.K. Yog & Prakash Krishna, JJ.
...
Above application hence listed today before this Bench (specially constituted for PH/Tied-up cases).
One of us, Prakash Krishna, J. expressed his inability and declined to hear the case. Sri Jain, in an unusual manner, insisted upon disclosing the reason for 'declining' and also to place on the issue of 'jurisdiction'/hearing the Writ Petition by the Bench presided by A. K. Yog, J.
Undue eagerness exhibited by Sri Jain to make further submission- after one of us declined to participate on the bench, could not be appreciated and he was told that he can make his submission-when case is listed next before Court on 21.12.2006.
...
To save precious time of the Court, and eliminate doubt of any nature as well as to re-assure that case is being heard by competent Court we direct the record to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and, if deemed appropriate, to reallocate/nominate the bench, for hearing of the said application and the Writ Petition.
(underlined to lay emphasis).
7. In view of the above order, Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed following order-
If one Hon. Judge of a DB is not willing to hear a recall application then it has to be heard by the other Hon. Judge alone. Let the ma
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
