Madarsa Road Residents' ... vs Lt. Governor And Ors.
1995 Latest Caselaw 24 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) The petitioners-first petitioner being anassociationof residents living in Madarsa Road which is primarily a residential area and the second petitioner being a resident of that area, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking various directions to the respondents to stop the plying of heavy vehicles in the area to control the pollution and to declare the area a silence zone. When the petition was originally filed there were threerespondents. The fourth respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi was imploded by the order of this Court as that is the authority who is to put barricades.There cannot be any dispute that the problem of congestion in the area is acute and because of plying of vehicles, particularly heavy and medium transportvehicles, some time the road in the locality gets blocked causing great inconvenience to the residents, not to motion the pollution caused by emission of fuel from the vehicles, blowing of horns and danger to the residents more sochildren. Even the Principal of the Delhi Engineering College, Delhi, also complained to the authorities that the condition of traffic on Madarsa Road adjoining the Delhi Engineering College Campus was chaotic and was posing at hreat to the safety and life of the college students and staff. He said on the otherside of the Madarsa Road there was a residential area and that in the midst of residential area and the campus of the college some transport companies had estabished their offices/god owns and they load/unload their goods and for that reason the trucks and other heavy vehicles cause traffic obstructions. The Principal also complained about the noise pollution which he said disturbed the students during their classes, laboratory, library and hostel and at times the noise was intolerable. He also complained about environmental pollution and risk to the users of the road by the residents, students and staff. The Principal, therefore,suggested putting up barricades at appropriate height to prevent the heavy vehicles coming to Madarsa Road and also suggested putting up speed breakers to control the speed of the vehicles using the road. Lastly, he said that considering the safety of students and staff necessary action to prevent the menace indicated by him be taken.

(2) The petitioner has brought on record a notification issued by the District Magistrate in 1972 under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act as extended to Delhi prohibiting plying ad parking of all heavy transport vehicles including buses on the Nigam Bodh Ghat Marg, Madarsa Road and Church Road, all in the Kashmere Gate area from the date of issue of the notification which is 15/05/1972. We are told that this notification is still in force. The Deputy Commissioner of Police(Traffic) in his affidavit stated that an order was issued on 4/10/1993 under Regulation 30(1) of the Delhi Control of Vehicular and other Traffic on Roads and Streets Regulation, 1980, prohibiting the plying of HTVs except D.T.C. buses,School buses, M.C.D. and N.D.M.C., Desu and other Government vehicles, on theMadarsa Road. He said that Madarsa Road was "No. Entry Zone" for HTVs andthat effective measures were taken to enforce the order. He also said that the area had been declared as silence zone and all effective steps were taken to enforce thatorder. For the purpose of this petition we do not think it is necessary for us to goin to the question as to for what period opening of the verge on the Ring Road should be allowed. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) he indicated that from October to December 1993 as many as 21 vehicles were chelan on Church Road and 12 at Madarsa Road for violating sthe prohibitory orders. He further said that sign boards had been up/erected at both ends of these roads indicating that there was no entry for HTVs throughout24 hours.

(3) During the pendency of this petition various directions were issued from time to time. After the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was imploded, it had objection to putting up of barriers on two counts:(l)thatthebusesof schools and Engineering College come to Madarsa Road, and (2) that various transporters who are having their offices in the area would be affected. Other respondents also stated that at times because of procession, etc, the main Sham Nath Marg(Kashmere Gate Road) gets blocked and this traffic is diverted on the Madarsa Road. Mr. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, stated that permanent barricades would hamper the free flow of traffic when Sham Nath Marg is blocked for one reason or the other.He said only on such occasions Madarsa Road be used to ease the traffic. We asked the respondent M.C.D. to make a survey of the area as to how many school buses come to the Madarsa Road and then to talk to the parents of the children who use the school buses. An affidavit has been filed by the Zonal Assistant Engineer,M.C.D. stating that he did get the views of the parents of the school-going children elicited and survey showed that almost 99% of the parents had no objection for installtion of the barriers on the Madarsa Road. Mr. Aggarwal also brought on record a site plan of the area showing the Church Road and Madarsa Road. We find it is unfortunate that in spite of prohibitory orders the Madarsa Road is being used by the HTVs and MMVs and scant respect is paid to the order declaring the area to be silence zone.

(4) In the circumstances, we issue an order directing the respondentM.C.D. to construct and erect the barriers on hot sides of Madarsa Road at a height that no MMVs and HTVs would be able to pass through these barriers. The barriers should be constructed and operated in such a way that as and when any emergent situation arises when Sham Nath Marg is blocked, these barriers could be removed for a short period to ease the traffic on Sham Nath Marg. A direction is also issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) to ensure that prohibitory orders issued are strictly followed. For this purpose representatives of the first petitioner may be associated, and if any complaint is made strict actions hould be taken against the person contravening the orders.

(5) With these observations, this petition is disposed of.