The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that Footpath and dedicated track must not be used for parking, putting the signing board, or for business purposes.
Petitioner is claiming itself to be a group of cyclists and pedestrians but the same is an unregistered association. Petitioner has not disclosed the names and strengths of its members and any authorization given to Nirmala Devre for filing the writ petition. Petitioner is claiming itself to be an NGO but no such registration and antecedents have been filed in this writ petition.
Advocate Manoj Munshi, appearing for the Indore Municipal Corporation contended that the Corporation has constructed the footpath by using paver blocks on both sides of the road. After the construction of BRTS at various places, no area is left to provide dedicated tracks for cyclists. In the major part of the city, roads have been widened from single lanes to two lanes / four lanes / six lanes after dismantling the various constructions and acquisition of the land. No further area is available to provide a separate track.
The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Rajendra Kumar Verma noted that providing a dedicated track for cyclists within the city is not a statutory requirement. There is only a recommendation under the National Urban Transport Policy, 2014 which has no statutory force.
The court said that under AMRUT Scheme, IDA as well as Municipal Corporation has provided sufficient dedicated track to the cyclists. Footpaths have been constructed on both sides of roads but at some places the general public is using those footpaths for the purpose of parking, putting the signing board or for business purposes, therefore, the public itself is acting detrimental to the public interest.
The court stated that the public needs to be educated not to use the footpath and dedicated track for other purposes. So far as possible, the local bodies and Government authorities are controlling the traffic, removing the encroachment and providing basic amenities.
The court while disposing of the petition held that no further direction is required in the case.
Case title: Cycle Yaatri Samooh and Ors. v/s Union of India and Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition No.27464/2018