RAJNEESH MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the interveners submitted and referred several provisions of law which we have already considered in earlier hearing. However, according to the learned counsel for the interveners there should not be blanket stay order against the issuance of new permit. Learned counsel for the interveners also relied upon a valid affidavit filed by the Union of India wherein it has been clearly stated that the Union of India on material points has not taken any decision.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that it is clear from the report submitted by the committee constituted by this Court on 5th May, 2012 that in the city of Ranchi, which is a capital city, as per the road transport authority only 2300 permits have been issued to the auto rickshaws whereas against these permits, 6000 auto rickshaws are running. It is also submitted that the petitioner is relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, 1998 AIR(SC) 186 and also relied upon the orders passed by Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mahendra Lodha Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2007 2 RajLW 1428 wherein several orders were passed with respect to regulating the traffic congestion in the city of Jodhpur, in the State of Rajasthan. In that case of Mahendra Lodha several directions were issued to the State Government and several restrictions were imposed vide order dated 21st November, 2000 and those directions and restrictions were challenged by preferring Special Leave Petition which was rejected by order dated 9th April, 2001 and the order of the Apex Court is "We are happy to know that at least one High Court is taking trouble of cleaning of the area of the city in which it is situated following the orders of this Court in M.C. Mehta's case, we see no reason to interfere with the directions so issued. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed."

(3.) It is also submitted that petitioner's writ petition is seeking directions against respondent to allow the public of the city of Ranchi to live in a dignified way and Hon'ble Supreme Court also issued directions under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the case of M.C. Mehta. It is also submitted that after the M.C. Mehta's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case issued several directions, and therefore, the matter of public importance cannot be confined to various provisions of the law under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It is a question of life and safety of the persons of a capital city of the State of Jharkhand.