SUO MOTU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The advent of sophisticated automobile technology, introduction of easy loan facility, the availability of wide range of motor vehicles and the increase in urban population, have all contributed in taking the number of vehicular accidents and the resultant fatality and the injuries to an alarming proportion during recent times. At one point of time, though the motor cars were available at a lesser price than the prevailing, their users were less since during those days motor cars were not easily available, the range of motor cars was also very limited and there was hardly any loan facility available to the people. However, the time has now changed. The judicial notice also can be taken of the fact that the finance to purchase motor vehicles has become easily available, and there is growing tendency in the public at large to avail such facility, even at the cost of substantial cut in the monthly expenditure, which have brought tremendous increase in motor vehicles of different makes and kinds in the urban areas. The cities like Ahmedabad, Surat, Vadodara and Rajkot in Gujarat seem flooded with motor vehicles of all categories. It is also a matter of grave concern that unlike the days not very far in the past, the students have taken fancy for motor vehicles and especially the two wheelers and it is also noticed that even the parents nurture such craze by buying vehicle for the children even when they have not become eligible to hold licence under the Motor Vehicles Act [hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act'] and the Motor Vehicles Rules [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'] framed thereunder. The temptation on the part of the users of such sophisticated vehicles to drive their vehicles at the speed much in excess to the desired or reasonable speed on the public roads has become a major problem not only for the law enforcing agency but even for the citizens. The public safety today is in the doldrums. Almost every day more than one fatal accident in one part or the other of the State have been occurring either on the Highways or in any of the major cities or in rural area. There are different types of vehicular accidents in which the citizens lose their lives or sustain serious injuries. The accidents resulting due to collision between two vehicles, vehicle turning turtle on account of excessive speed are common so far four wheelers are concerned. Whereas fatal accidents of two wheelers are concerned, they are very common because of slipping of the vehicles. So far accident resulting due to collision between two vehicles is concerned, death is caused due to serious injuries suffered by the inmates of the vehicles on account of the impact; whereas the riders of two wheelers sustain serious head injuries on account of their heads banging against the road with force causing brain hemorrhage. Apart from this, pedestrians also get killed because of vehicles running over them. The nature of accidents has remained the same over the years, but now the number of accidents has gone up phenomenally on account of the factors stated above. It also appears that for various reasons the number of vehicular accidents is not being brought under control. It may be stated here that the legislature has taken care of the hazards posed by the motor vehicles and to impose adequate control over it, it has enacted the M V Act. In the said Act various measures have been prescribed whereby the legislature has tried to regulate the vehicular traffic, to avoid or to minimize vehicular accidents, to safeguard the environment and to ensure public safety. Inspite of that the number of vehicular accidents has reached to such proportion that as if these provisions do not exist at all.

(2.) Way back in the year 1995 this Court had felt the urgent need to curb the danger posed to the public safety and had taken serious note of the total failure of the Government and the traffic police to control and minimize the number of road accidents. It had also felt then that it was absolutely necessary for this Court to ensure the public safety and to issue appropriate directions to the Government and to the police to implement the provisions of the M V Act, with all earnestness and to book the defaulters for committing the offences under the M V Act as also the Penal Code. It therefore, had initiated suo-motu proceedings in the nature of public interest litigation and issued notices to various authorities responsible for the implementation of the provisions of the M V Act. The Court even at that time had felt it necessary to reduce the amount of pollution caused by the motor vehicles and, it had given its thoughtful consideration to this major issue related to the traffic. It appears that even earlier to this, public body named Lok Adhikar Sangh had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 8061 of 1992 in the nature of public interest litigation praying for issuance of appropriate direction on the traffic manning agencies. The Division Bench of this Court by a common CAV Judgment dated 22nd February, 1999 gave detailed directions to various authorities mainly with a view to see that the provisions of the M V Act are implemented by the concerned agencies effectively and efficiently with a view to regulate the traffic properly, minimize the vehicular accidents and control the pollution caused by the use of vehicles.

(3.) Almost 10 years thereafter, we have felt that the labour put in and the exercise carried out by this Court earlier has gone in vain since the Government and the concerned agency, namely the police of the Traffic Branch have completely ignored these directions and have given undesired latitude to the motor vehicle owners to drive their vehicles in a manner they like, totally disregarding the provisions of law. The situation has deteriorated considerably now for the factors stated above. For this very reason, it was at this time, almost a year and a half back, we again decided to take up the issue of public safety by initiating suo-motu proceedings in the nature of public interest litigation, which can more or less be termed as continuation of earlier proceedings. Our anxiety on this issue has been adequately narrated by us in our order dated 11th October, 2004. The said order is required to be reproduced verbatim, which is as under :-