J P SANGHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner who is an advocate of this Court. By this petition he has challenged the speed breakers which are erected in the town of Jabalpur and also on national highways passing through the territories of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the State and the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, are enjoined with the duty of maintaining roads in the town and also to maintain the national highways and the State highways running within the territorial limits of Madhya Pradesh. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondents have been constructing road-humps and speed breakers to check the speed of vehicles passing on these roads and it is alleged that although the road-humps and speed-breakers have been constructed but the respondents have not taken care either to put proper and adequate road signals to alert the vehicle drivers nor have they cared to construct these road humps and speed breakers under any specification of design or size. It is alleged that in the town of Jabalpur itself a number of speed breakers have been constructed and in some cases they are so high that even at very ordinary speed of the vehicle they endanger the vehicles, their silencers, petrol tank and chambers hit the humps of the roads and sometimes cause serious damage. According to the petitioner, the purpose behind the construction of these road humps and speed breakers appears to be to check speed of the vehicles in order to secure safety but in fact the manner in which these speed breakers and road humps have been constructed without any signal really endanger the security of the persons travelling in the vehicles. The petitioner has also alleged that the Central Government, vide letter No. PL/50(8)/72 dated 4th June 1976, addressed to the Secretaries of the State Public Works Departments, have given guidelines as to under what circumstances the speed breakers should be constructed and it is alleged that under these instructions it was desired that wherever speed limit is to be fixed for some specific reasons, it should be ensured through speed limit signs and their strict and rigorous enforcement. Alternatively it was recommended that rumble strips and flashing signals may be considered to alert the drivers through audible/visual stimuli. It is further alleged in the petition that in order to evade the duty of controlling the traffic and the speed limit, the respondents are penalising the road users by erecting such hindrances on the roads which result in serious hazards and accidents and the petitioner has quoted an incident and the petitioner has quoted where the petitioner himself fell a victim to an accident which was caused due to a very high speed breaker on the road going to the medical college without putting any signals and signs. At the time of hearing, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no lawful authority with the respondents to create such obstacles on the roads. The law only contemplates putting up of signals whenever speed limit is fixed and therefore such road humps and speed breakers could not be justified. The relief sought in the petition was removal of all the speed breakers from the town of Jabalpur and also on all national highways in the territory of Madhya Pradesh. It is also sought that a direction be issued so that appropriate road signals be put on the roads to caution the drivers whenever such road humps or speed breakers are erected and also for a direction that the roads be properly maintained.

(3.) In the return filed by respondent No. 1 it was stated that these road humps and speed breakers have been erected to avoid road accidents in the city and to control the speed of the vehicles. It is contended that human life is more precious and in order to avoid serious road accidents at the risk of little inconvenience to the vehicle drivers these road humps have been constructed. It is alleged that these have been constructed on the recommendation of a Traffic Committee of the district level. Along with the return a chart has also been filed showing the number of accidents in the town and a map has been produced to show 41 speed breakers on the National Highway No. 7. As regards the letter of the Central Government it is stated that it only gives some guidelines in respect of construction of speed breakers but as the local conditions are known to the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate issued instructions under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act and most of the speed breakers have been put up near the public institutions, such as schools, hospitals, colleges, district courts and sharp turnings. It is denied in the return that these speed breakers themselves endanger human life.