GUWAHATI, Nov 30 - A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Nelson Sailo after hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL No. 72/16) filed by a practising lawyer of the High Court Rita Das Mazumdar on the issue of inaction of the authorities to decongest the city streets and clear the footpaths of vendors to make them free for use by pedestrians, has issued a notice to the State respondents.
The PIL was filed contending interalia that non-uniformity of the road width is one of the key factors for traffic snarls and because of parking of vehicles indiscriminately on both sides of the roads, only limited usage of the road capacity is possible.
In the PIL, it was further contended that the lack of planning and inaction of the authorities have led to not only inconvenience for the commuters, but have also led to escalation of costs for every activity, on account of loss of time and higher fuel consumption. Although under sections 84 and 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the errant permit holder can be taken to task, this is rarely resorted to by the authorities, the petitioner alleged.
The court, after hearing the PIL, issued notice to all the State respondent authorities fixing the case on January 9.
GUWAHATI, Nov 30 - A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Nelson Sailo after hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL No. 72/16) filed by a practising lawyer of the High Court Rita Das Mazumdar on the issue of inaction of the authorities to decongest the city streets and clear the footpaths of vendors to make them free for use by pedestrians, has issued a notice to the State respondents.
The PIL was filed contending interalia that non-uniformity of the road width is one of the key factors for traffic snarls and because of parking of vehicles indiscriminately on both sides of the roads, only limited usage of the road capacity is possible.
In the PIL, it was further contended that the lack of planning and inaction of the authorities have led to not only inconvenience for the commuters, but have also led to escalation of costs for every activity, on account of loss of time and higher fuel consumption. Although under sections 84 and 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the errant permit holder can be taken to task, this is rarely resorted to by the authorities, the petitioner alleged.
The court, after hearing the PIL, issued notice to all the State respondent authorities fixing the case on January 9.
