Friday, November 21, 2008
source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
After stepping up prosecution and deploying manpower even at night to catch violators of traffic rules, the cops are now turning to
innovative means in a bid to teach Delhiites how to drive better. Starting Tuesday, motorists getting challaned will be handed a detailed booklet on road safety and laws, which is expected to "educate'' them about the law and make them better drivers.
As part of the exercise, aimed at making Delhi roads safer by instilling more discipline among drivers, traffic policemen deployed all around the city have been handed a book, `A Guide to Road Safety', which is being given out free of cost to every driver prosecuted for a traffic offence along with the challan slip. The booklet, created in-house by Delhi Police, details the rules of driving on the roads, qualities of a good driver, road safety tips, road markings and signs, major traffic offences concerning safety and speed limits.
The different approach adopted by the cops took motorists by surprise. "I was stopped for crossing the stop line on Mathura Road. Just as I started explaining how it was a mistake, the policeman issuing the challan gave me a small book with the slip. He asked me to read it thoroughly so that I become a better driver,'' said Munish Kumar, who was prosecuted near Pragati Maidan.
In a scenario where getting a driving license is an easy task and large section of those who are actually granted the license have little knowledge of the rules that they are actually supposed to adhere to on the road, the booklet could go a long way in educating Delhi's masses.
According to the traffic police, over 95 per cent of the accidents are a result of careless behaviour on roads and can be prevented with better driving. As joint commissioner of police (traffic), SN Shrivastava, puts it: "The idea of prosecution is to penalise people so that they don't repeat the offence. But we were noticing that prosecution is not having this impact. In order to ensure effectiveness, the book is given out too.''
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Administration pulled up over entry fee charged by parking contractors
Friday, November 21, 2008
source: http://www.expressindia.com
The Punjab and Haryana High Court took the UT Administration to task on Wednesday over the parking fee being charged from commuters for merely entering a parking lot, even if they do not actually keep vehicles there.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tirath Singh Thakur and Justice Jasbir Singh was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Ajay Jagga. The PIL seeks directions to ensure that parking fee should not be charged on the movement of vehicles on a public road in any market area unless the vehicle is actually parked in the slots adjoining the passage.
“How can you insist on charging a person who has not even parked the car in a parking area? How have you allowed all this to take place in the city?” Thakur asked the counsel appearing for the Administration.
Responding to the query, the law officer submitted that this had been done to reduce heavy traffic in parking areas. “We are spoilt so much that we tend to take our vehicles to the very shop or building we are visiting,” said the law officer.
Refusing to show any conviction in the averments, the Chief Justice observed: “That does not mean you put a ban on commuters from entering into a
parking area.”
The Chief Justice disapproved of the fact that parking contractors posted their employees to put barricades and stop vehicles from entering the parking area until the fee was paid. He asked: “Suppose a person has come to drop someone or is waiting to pick up someone, does that mean you will charge parking fee from him too?”
The court asked the Administration to look into the issue seriously and ensure that those who entered a parking area but did not park vehicles should not be forced to pay any fee. “Putting a barricade and asking people to pay is not done,” the Chief Justice remarked.
Giving instance of illegal parking fee charged by contractors in Delhi, the Chief Justice told the UT counsel that it should ensure that illegal contractors are not allowed to function.
“These contractors have their own techniques. In Delhi, there were unauthorised contractors. Some people just occupy a parking area and keep their hoodlums and start charging money,” said Thakur.
The UT counsel has been directed to seek instructions from the Administration on the issue.
CHB told to pay up for not filing reply
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) to pay up Rs 2,500 for not filing reply to a petition despite being given repeated opportunities.
A Division Bench headed by Justice M M Kumar was hearing a petition challenging the Self Financing Housing Scheme for UT employees that was pending in the High Court.
The CHB had been earlier told several times to file its reply to the petition.
A bunch of petitions were filed by various UT employees, accusing the Administration of making a tailor-made scheme for higher rank officers and depriving junior officers.
During the last hearing two weeks ago, the Division Bench had given a last opportunity to the Administration to file a written reply.
source: http://www.expressindia.com
The Punjab and Haryana High Court took the UT Administration to task on Wednesday over the parking fee being charged from commuters for merely entering a parking lot, even if they do not actually keep vehicles there.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tirath Singh Thakur and Justice Jasbir Singh was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Ajay Jagga. The PIL seeks directions to ensure that parking fee should not be charged on the movement of vehicles on a public road in any market area unless the vehicle is actually parked in the slots adjoining the passage.
“How can you insist on charging a person who has not even parked the car in a parking area? How have you allowed all this to take place in the city?” Thakur asked the counsel appearing for the Administration.
Responding to the query, the law officer submitted that this had been done to reduce heavy traffic in parking areas. “We are spoilt so much that we tend to take our vehicles to the very shop or building we are visiting,” said the law officer.
Refusing to show any conviction in the averments, the Chief Justice observed: “That does not mean you put a ban on commuters from entering into a
parking area.”
The Chief Justice disapproved of the fact that parking contractors posted their employees to put barricades and stop vehicles from entering the parking area until the fee was paid. He asked: “Suppose a person has come to drop someone or is waiting to pick up someone, does that mean you will charge parking fee from him too?”
The court asked the Administration to look into the issue seriously and ensure that those who entered a parking area but did not park vehicles should not be forced to pay any fee. “Putting a barricade and asking people to pay is not done,” the Chief Justice remarked.
Giving instance of illegal parking fee charged by contractors in Delhi, the Chief Justice told the UT counsel that it should ensure that illegal contractors are not allowed to function.
“These contractors have their own techniques. In Delhi, there were unauthorised contractors. Some people just occupy a parking area and keep their hoodlums and start charging money,” said Thakur.
The UT counsel has been directed to seek instructions from the Administration on the issue.
CHB told to pay up for not filing reply
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) to pay up Rs 2,500 for not filing reply to a petition despite being given repeated opportunities.
A Division Bench headed by Justice M M Kumar was hearing a petition challenging the Self Financing Housing Scheme for UT employees that was pending in the High Court.
The CHB had been earlier told several times to file its reply to the petition.
A bunch of petitions were filed by various UT employees, accusing the Administration of making a tailor-made scheme for higher rank officers and depriving junior officers.
During the last hearing two weeks ago, the Division Bench had given a last opportunity to the Administration to file a written reply.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Parking lease by MCD on pvt land stayed
Saturday, November 15, 2008
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
The Delhi High Court has stayed an award of a parking contract to a private contractor by MCD after the owner of the land challenged it
before HC.
A division bench of HC stayed the license awarded by MCD in Udyog Nagar Industrial Area. The land belongs to a co-operative society which alleged that this action of MCD was illegal as the road and adjoining streets were not ''public streets'' but private ones.
Seeking a stay through lawyer Rakesh Makhija, "Manufacturers Co-operative Ind Estate Ltd'' argued before HC that they had only roped in MCD for maintenance of roads inside their industrial complex but the civic agency went ahead and leased out a parking award to a private player who has nothing to do with the society.
Enumerating the dates, the society informed the court that MCD was brought into the picture in 1975 for simple maintenance of roads for which the members paid a fixed sum to the agency. However, in October this year, members were surprised to see a private contractor who turned up and demanded money from car owners. He waived a contract granted by MCD to bolster his claims and said it was a public street with MCD as its owner and therefore, people have to cough up parking fee. the contractor also informed members that he was shelling out a monthly amount to MCD in return for this license.
The members rushed to court seeking relief, saying they had been reduced to paying money for parking vehicles on their own land. They also alleged that MCD didn't even bother to inform the society members that it had brought in a private contractor to oversee parking.
MCD on its part, claimed that the roads belonged to it by virtue of society transferring maintenance to it. The civic agency defended its decision, arguing the discretion remained with MCD on what to do with this road and adjoining area which was being maintained by it.
When the case was heard first by a single judge, he refused to stay the contract and jointly sought a response from the civic agency, prompting the petitioners to again move HC before a division bench. They argued that without an interim stay, they were being forced to pay money for parking inside the area.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
The Delhi High Court has stayed an award of a parking contract to a private contractor by MCD after the owner of the land challenged it
before HC.
A division bench of HC stayed the license awarded by MCD in Udyog Nagar Industrial Area. The land belongs to a co-operative society which alleged that this action of MCD was illegal as the road and adjoining streets were not ''public streets'' but private ones.
Seeking a stay through lawyer Rakesh Makhija, "Manufacturers Co-operative Ind Estate Ltd'' argued before HC that they had only roped in MCD for maintenance of roads inside their industrial complex but the civic agency went ahead and leased out a parking award to a private player who has nothing to do with the society.
Enumerating the dates, the society informed the court that MCD was brought into the picture in 1975 for simple maintenance of roads for which the members paid a fixed sum to the agency. However, in October this year, members were surprised to see a private contractor who turned up and demanded money from car owners. He waived a contract granted by MCD to bolster his claims and said it was a public street with MCD as its owner and therefore, people have to cough up parking fee. the contractor also informed members that he was shelling out a monthly amount to MCD in return for this license.
The members rushed to court seeking relief, saying they had been reduced to paying money for parking vehicles on their own land. They also alleged that MCD didn't even bother to inform the society members that it had brought in a private contractor to oversee parking.
MCD on its part, claimed that the roads belonged to it by virtue of society transferring maintenance to it. The civic agency defended its decision, arguing the discretion remained with MCD on what to do with this road and adjoining area which was being maintained by it.
When the case was heard first by a single judge, he refused to stay the contract and jointly sought a response from the civic agency, prompting the petitioners to again move HC before a division bench. They argued that without an interim stay, they were being forced to pay money for parking inside the area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
