SUO MOTO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UPON taking up of this matter, the learned amicus curiae Mr.Pankaj Sharma submitted that after the yesterday's hearing, some of the police officers present in the Court did attempt to confer with him as regards the things that transpired before the Court. Upon our taking exception on any of the officer trying to over-reach and to confer with the amicus curiae, an officer of the Court, Mr. Karni Singh, ACP (Traffic-East), Jodhpur and Mr. Narpat Singh, Additional DCP, Jodhpur have stated their apologies in writing before us. The apologies are taken on record. Passing of appropriate orders in this regard is deferred and shall be considered on the next date.

(2.) UPON our taking exceptions that the promises as made before the Court repeatedly have not been kept and requisite work has not been executed as would appear from all the reports, whether made by the Department/s concerned or by the amicus curiae and upon our taking further exception on the fact that even the meeting of Jodhpur Traffic Control Board was held only on 28.09.2012 after earlier date of hearing i.e., 13.08.2012 when assurance was given before the Court for executing the work before 8th October 2012, Mr. Ratan Lahoti, Commissioner, JDA, Jodhpur has made submissions that though no minutes were drawn but meetings were held by the Jodhpur Traffic Control Board on weekly basis. Upon our still expressing serious reservation on the failure on the part of the Departments in executing the work concerned, the Commissioner, JDA has placed before us the minutes of the meeting held today itself at 10:30 a.m. in his Chambers.

(3.) IT may, of course, be observed that on 10.9.2012 in this very matter, the Court did consider an application moved on behalf of Mr.Karni Singh, ACP (Traffic-East), Jodhpur for being relieved, as he was said to have earned incentive promotion; and this Court did grant the application subject to the observations that he would be relieved only upon his successor joining and with the further observation that the reliever would also be answerable to all the aspects related with this matter when joining in place of him and for that matter, it was also made clear that if anything of shortcoming or laxity would be found on the part of the present incumbent, appropriate orders would be considered, if necessary. So far other officers are concerned, as at present, when we find that the assurances made before this Court on 13.08.2012 have not been fulfilled and substantial part of public utility work, so as to ensure smooth flow of traffic in Jodhpur, is yet to be done, we see no reason as to why any order be passed permitting any officer or incumbent to be relieved. The application, as at present, stands rejected. However, it is made clear in relation to Mr.Narpat Singh, who had in fact appeared earlier as link officer in place of DCP (Traffic) that if any request is to be made for being relieved, it shall be permissible for him to move proper application that shall be considered in accordance with law.