CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. versus NAMIT KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 764 · Decided: 27-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. 
v. 
NAMIT KUMAR AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYATAND PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 21, 32, 136 and 226. 
Public Interest Litigation-Environmental pollution-Air and noise 
pollution-High Court issued following directions: (a) High-Powered 
Committee's suggestions to be treated as directions by High Court; (b) 
parking charges; (c) wearing of helmets; (d) parking space; (e) one-way 
traffic; (/) utilization of transport undertaking vehicles; (g) black film 
on glasses; (h) demolition of booths; (i) removal of advertisement 
facing highway, main roads and side roads and (j) provision of 
signboards-Effect of-On appeal, directions modified by Supreme Court-
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, R. 100(2)-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, 
S. 85-A-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S. 129-Motor Vehicles (Protective 
Headgears) Rules, 1980-Punjab Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, R. i93-
Chandigarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, R.193. 
Environmental law-Environmental Pollution-Air and noise 
pollution-Notice to affected persons-Necessity of-Held: While dealing 
with issues like environmental pollution and road hazards there is no need 
for giving notice to all persons affected 
In all these appeals challenge was to some of the directions given 
by the High Court while dealing with,a public interest litigation filed by 
an ·advocate and two doctors. Their main grievance was that there was 
immense air and noise pollution, .traffic congestion and unsystematic 
functioning of the various authorities. It was specifically highlighted 
that there was an increase in the number of vehicular accidents, which, 
resulted from absence of proper traffic control. 
The High Court issued certain directions and also stipulated that 
the suggestions made by the High~Powered Committee should be treated 
as directions of the High Court. 
H 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that before the 
764 
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. NAMIT KUMAR 
765 
recommendations and suggestions of the High-Powered Committee were 
treated to be directions of the High Court, an opportunity be granted to 
the appellants; that the Direction stipulating that all persons including 
women should wear helmets while driving two wheelers violated Rule 3 
of the Motor Vehicles (Protective Headgears) Rules, 1980 and Rule 193 
of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 and Rule 193 of the Chandigarh 
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 which exempted Sikh women from wearing 
helmets; that if parking was not permitted, it would mean that even old 
and disabled persons, children and ladies have to walk a long distance 
to go to their residential houses; that there was no difficulty in introducing 
one-way traffic system in institutional and commercial Sectors but liberty 
should be given to the appellants to make relaxation taking into account 
the relevant factors; that the booth, were not on the main roads but 
were on the diversion used when the roads were not operational; that it 
would not be possible to implement the direction regarding the provision 
of signboards immediately and that the State Government would do it 
in a phased manner. 
Disposing of the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. Suggestions of High-Powered Committee. Whenever any 
suggestion is received from the High-Powered Committee the appellant-
Administration shall be given an opportunity to have its say and thereafter 
the High Court shall pass necessary orders either accepting the 
recommendations or modifying the same suitably, if necessary. (768-F-G] 
2. Parking Charges: Considering the difficulties highlighted the 
direction is modified to the extent that it shall be for the appellant-
Administration to fix the quantum of parking charges taking into account 
all the relevant factors. (768-B] 
3. Wearing of helmets: If any exemption is granted to any person 
including Sikh women from any of the Motor Vehicles Rules relating to 
different States or areas or under any Statutory Rule the same shall 
operate notwithstanding the directions of the High Court that all persons 
including women shall wear helmets. (770-B] 
4. Parking Space: The High Court can consider whether any viable 
arrangement can be worked out taking into account suggestions made 
by the appellant Administration and other parties before the High Court. 
(769-E-F) 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
766 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
5. One-way
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.