The Rajasthan High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to bring policy with regard to the traffic system in the Jaipur city as required in the present scenario.
Taking note of the problems relating to the public transportation system, the Court had issued directions from time to time in this PIL and various compliance reports have also been filed.
On 26.08.2019, the Court directed that the committee constituted by the respondents should also include an expert.The Additional Advocate General stated that the name of the expert shall be incorporated in the committee. Thereafter, the Court issued following directions:
“5. Apparently, the spaces earmarked for parking in constructed area and large buildings especially Malls, are not maintained as such. In this regard, it is submitted by the public interest litigant that invariably, such parking areas – within the Malls’s are used for other purposes – in many cases for commercial activities and shops etc. Given the fact that specific sanction enable use for such space builts only for parking, the respondents i.e. JDA, Nagar Palika and other local authorities are under an obligation to restore such constructed areas, especially in basements and other lands earmarked for parking to the original purpose. Notices to the extent necessary shall be issued within 2 months to all owners/occupiers after carrying out a survey for all such properties constructed. This direction is in the light of the Division Bench’s ruling in Gulab Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2017 (1) WLC 562 (Raj.). The court is also of the opinion that henceforth, no occupancy certificate ought to be issued to any building owner especially the owners of commercial buildings, malls, office complex etc. Without occupancy certificate, the owners should not be allowed to occupy the building. In each case, Nagar Palika/JDA, as the case may be, should inspect the site and places on its record, a survey report and record in the certificate, after due satisfaction that the built up space earmarked for parking has been maintained as such, and not diverted for any other use. Furthermore, an undertaking in this regard shall also be obtained from the owners of the all buildings/mall/commercial complex to maintain the area earmarked exclusively for parking, for that purpose alone.”
The petition since then has remained pending without any further orders. Therefore, while observing that no purpose will be served by keeping the PIL pending. The Division Bench of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar granted liberty to the the petitioner to bring to the notice of the Court the shortcomings or noncompliance of the directions, if any, issued in the past including directions issued by the Court on 26.08.2019.