SUO MOTO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this matter, a report has been filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur by the learnedcounsel Mr.R.S.Saluja; and another report has been filed by Mr. Jamvant Gurjar, the learned Government Counsel on behalf of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic-East), Jodhpur.

(2.) IN this PIL matter, where essentially the disturbed and mismanaged traffic system of the City of Jodhpur has been of prime concern, earlier suo motu cognizance was taken on the problem by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Later, the matter being of PIL, was assigned to this Division Bench. We had, in the earlier hearings on this matter, essentially expected of the authorities concerned to carry out their duties and responsibilities. On 31.05.2012, an assurance was stated by all the concerned that serious efforts would be put on continuous basis and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing in the matter assured that within seven days, substantial results would be available.

(3.) DURING the course of submissions, Mr.Pankaj Sharma, one of the amicus curiae, made a submission that an appeal has been published in the newspaper whereby the respondents have suggested to the public about the orders passed by this Court for traffic management. When we posed the question to the DCP (Traffic) present in Court as to what order has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the response from the DCP (Traffic) had been that he or his office did not publish any such appeal in the newspaper.Since the statement made by the amicus curiae, a responsible officer of the Court, was being contradicted by the DCP (Traffic), we, in the first place, took exception in the DCP (Traffic) attempting to do so. Mr.Pankaj Sharma has, in the meantime, called for and produced before us the newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika' Jodhpur Edition dated 18.07.2012 carrying such an appeal, published at page No.15.