Petitioner suggested an odd-stop-even-go traffic ban for Pune. The Court held that such policy decisions are for authorities, not courts, directing the petitioner to approach relevant policy makers.
Petitioner directed to approach concerned authorities with representation and create public awareness for the policy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRPIL 16-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 16 OF 2016
Vaibhav Balbhim Deshpande .. Petitioner V/s DCP Traffic, Pune Traffic Police Branch & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Prashant Dharandale for the petitioner. Ms. Shyamali Gadre i/b Little & Co. for respondent no.4. Mr. D.R. More for respondent no.2. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State. Mr. A.P. Kulkarni for respondent no.3.
CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 1st DECEMBER 2016
P.C.:
In principle, the petitioner is before this Court in a public interest litigation expressing his novel idea of reducing the traffic problems in the city of Pune by introduction of odd and even number vehicles to be on roads visa vis the number of days in a week. In other words, to impose a ban like what happened in other parts of the country.
1 of 2
ABS
CRPIL 16-2016
(M.S. SONAK, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE
2 of 2
ABS
1 issue framed by the court
Restrain courts from directly imposing policy measures for traffic reduction instead directing petitioner to approach concerned authorities.
Vaibhav Balbhim Deshpande
DCP Traffic, Pune Traffic Police Branch
Others
Dr. Manjula Chellur
M.S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
