Delhi High Court: A petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus, order or direction to be issued to the Respondents to remove the blockades which have been put on the crossings of Mathura Road preventing a right turn while coming from the additional building of the Supreme Court of India either to the main building of the Supreme Court of India or to the High Court of Delhi. A division bench of Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ., and Subramonium Prasad, J., dismissed the PIL because the traffic authorities are the best judges to decide the issue of regulation of traffic in the city.
The petitioner is by profession a practising Advocate, who commutes by car from the Supreme Court of India to the High Court of Delhi and have to appear in both the Supreme Court of India and the High Court on the same day. It is submitted by the Petitioner that due to barricades at all the crossings on Mathura Road, the distance of about 300-meters to 400-meters while travelling from the additional building of the Supreme Court to the main building of the High Court has become more than 5 kilometers which is not only time-consuming but also a wastage of fuel.
The petitioner submitted that that the decision of the Delhi Traffic Police to restrict the movement of vehicles by putting barricades at the crossing/traffic signal on Mathura Road for an indefinite period is arbitrary and unjust and in fact causes hurdles in the administration of justice. It is stated that this decision has not been intimated to the Supreme Court or High Court. It is stated that the Bar Associations of the Supreme Court as well as of the High Court have not taken into confidence before taking this decision.
The Court noted that they can take judicial notice of the substantial increase in road traffic in the city in the last few years and the number of cars that are parked on the roads in front of the High Court which causes a traffic hindrance, but traffic control is the sole domain of the Traffic Police.
Thus, the Court held that the traffic authorities are the best judges to decide the issue of regulation of traffic in the city and the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit over as an Appellate Authority over the decisions taken by the traffic authorities for regulating the movement of traffic in the city.
[Mamta Rani v GNCTD, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3817, decided on 03-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Mr. Vishal Tiwari and Mr. Akash Awana, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. Arun Panwar, Mr. Pradyumn Rao, Mr. Kartik Sharma, Ms. Mahak Rankawat, Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocates. Inspector Padam Singh, ASI Kanwar Singh, Traffic Police
