SHILLONG, Feb 17: The division bench of the High Court of Meghalaya has expressed its unhappiness over the manner in which the state government wants to tackle the problem of traffic snarls in Shillong.
The court said although the government filed a “fancy” report through the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, incorporating aerial pictures of the major junctions and areas of traffic bottleneck, there is little by way of commitment, planning or measures spelt out to tackle the problem.
The court was hearing a PIL filed by Philip Khrawbok Shati.
In its order, the division bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh said several sections of the government report referred to certain upcoming development projects – for parking, regulating traffic or for the ease of pedestrians – without any timeline or the slightest indication as to whether what is expressed in the report is a mere pipe dream.
According to court’s order, Shillong is at the seams and there is no space for expansion given the nature of the terrain. The problem seems to be increasing with each passing day as the number of vehicles is increasing and more and more are people coming out following the easing of COVID curbs.
The court observed that tourism, being a major industry of the state and Shillong the premier hill station, there is an increasing footfall in the city. It said the report does not indicate any previous plan or implementation thereof or even the present plan and its implementation within the foreseeable future.
“Certain vague measures are indicated and it does not appear from the report as to whether the measures indicated have been accepted or adopted or proposed by the state government or there is anything official about such measures or their implementation…
“At the highest, the report can be treated as a preliminary wish-list that cries out for a more detailed roadmap with timelines to be indicated, not only to deal with the present problem but also to make projections and be able to deal with the situation that may arise in 2025 and even in 2030,” the order reads.
The bench also said that it is a matter of concern that even though a previous petition pertaining to traffic congestion and chaos in Shillong was disposed of by an order issued on November 15, 2019 with the court exercising exemplary self-restraint by observing that no writ in the nature of mandamus could be issued as prayed for, the court’s request to the state government to consider the suggestions indicated in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition may have gone completely unheeded.
“Indeed, there is no reference in the present report to the previous matter or the promises made by the state government as recorded in such order or even the request of the court to consider the suggestions as put forth by the then writ petitioner,” the bench said.
It added: “It is only accidently that Mr. SP Mahanta, Senior Advocate, who had instituted the previous petition in his own name, seeking to intervene in the present proceedings, that the order dated November 15, 2019 passed in PIL No. 13 of 2019 has come to light.”
The bench said there is no doubt that the executive has the exclusive authority to deal with matters pertaining to traffic congestion but the regulation of vehicles and the plans in such regard must be put in place by taking the usual increase in number into account.
“Unfortunately, as in other matters pertaining to the preservation of the environment, tackling illegal mining operations in the state and the like, there does not appear to be any serious or concerted effort or roadmap of the state government in such key areas that require serious governance and immediate attention,” the bench observed.
If it is necessary, the state government has to engage with the autonomous district councils to improve the lot of the general people and ensure that the possible problems are anticipated and a plan of action put in place for, say, five or ten years or even beyond, it emphasised.
The matter will come up for hearing again in four weeks’ time.