The Gujarat High Court has questioned the traffic drives carried out by the Ahmedabad police department on Tuesday, asking why there appeared to be “no difference on the ground.”
During contempt proceedings, the high court’s division bench made an observation on the maintenance of municipal roads, efficient traffic flow and the threat posed by wandering animals.
The HC was notified by the city traffic department that ongoing action, oversight and supervision are necessary to carry out the order.
The petitioner’s lawyer, Amit Panchal, drew the court’s attention during the hearing to the senior police officer’s affidavit, which was submitted as part of the joint commissioner of police (traffic), explaining the repeated encroachment on city roads.
“The aforesaid directions of this court require continuous action, monitoring, and supervising and the said directions are not in a nature that once an action is taken against an offender, the same would not be repeated or that there would not be any further encroachment,” the affidavit stated.
Justice A Y Kogje of the division bench replied, “So they are giving premium to repeat the offence,” in response to the applicant’s lawyer raising an objection to this claim.
The JCP said that in order for the traffic department to comply with the court rulings, ordinary citizens must also assist them by demonstrating their civic responsibility.
When the senior traffic cop stated that extensive outreach efforts were necessary to educate citizens and that the authorities are putting in their efforts to fulfil the court orders, Justice Kogje stated, “We are also citizens of this country. We also live in Ahmedabad. We have not found any change on the ground. We also travel from residence to court, there we don’t find any transition. So, if you are not committed to that, what do we expect?”
The court additionally raised concerns about the traffic constables’ actions at the junction. “If you go to any crossroads and view what constables are doing and look at the nearby paan shop, there is no difference between them and others standing there. Why no difference on the ground in one month and two weeks?” the court asked the government’s lawyer.
The other division bench judge, Justice Samir Dave, asserted that the HC’s guidelines for efficient traffic flow should be applied throughout the state, not only on the city’s three roads. He criticised the government for failing to exhibit the necessary will.
The traffic department’s report and the government pleader’s claim that coordinated measures were made to address traffic concerns did not appear to convince the court. Justice Kogje told the govt lawyer, “It is only the lip service that you are giving to the court.”
Also Read: Monsoon Revives in Gujarat: Heavy Rains Expected Over the Next Week
