Unknown vs State Of J&Amp;K &Amp; Ors on 24 December, 2012

Jammu High Court Jammu High Court Unknown vs State Of J&Amp;K &Amp; Ors on 24 December, 2012 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. WPPIL No. 25 OF 2011 Dr. Davinder Singh Jasrotia & Ors Petitioners State of J&K & Ors Respondent !Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate ^Mr. M. I. Qadri, Advocate General Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. AAG Hon ble Mr. Justice M. M. Kumar, Chief Justice Hon ble Mr. Justice Hasnain Massodi, Judge Date: 24.12.2012 :J U D G M E N T : M. M. Kumar, CJ 1. In response to order dated 25.09.2012, Sh. Dilbag Singh, Inspector General of Police, Jammu Zone has filed a status report on 16.10.2012. In para 4 of the compliance report it is revealed that all the police vehicles of Executive Wing are operating strictly as per the official norms and there is no violation of the laid down norms as per the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. The aforesaid statement is based on the compliance report received by him. He has further maintained that as per the directions contained in the order passed by Hon ble the Supreme Court in Avishek 2 Goenka s case, all the police vehicles of Executive Wing of Jammu Zone are plying on the roads without using tinted/black films of any VLT percentage or any other such objectionable material which lessens the transparency of the safety glasses, wind screens (front and rear) and side glasses or conceal the visibility inside the vehicle. However, the matter with regard to exception of tinted films in respect of vehicles of Z and Z plus protectees on account of security reasons is under consideration which exception is created by the order of the Supreme Court itself while passing directions in Avishek Gonek s case (supra). 2. We now take up the application registered as CMA No. 344 of 2012 Mr. Rohit Kapoor, learned counsel for the applicant, has argued that the vehicle with tinted glasses, black films and curtains are found to be plying in Jammu in gross violation of the directions issued by this Court based on the judgment in Avishek Gonek s case. 3 He has placed on record a list of more than 300 vehicles along with some of the photographs. A copy of the application along with photographs has been handed over to Mr. Basotra. We reiterate the directions issued in our previous orders dated 27.03.2012 and other orders passed till date. 3. The specific registration numbers revealed in the application would show that no adequate efforts are being made by the respondent and we wish to make it clear that if the authorities continue to fail in their duties, strict action would be initiated. It may be true that the senior officers have issued directions but simple initiation may not be sufficient to achieve the desired results. It may require continuous seeking of report from the executive staff at the ground level which would be sine qua non for effective implementation of the directions issued earlier. If any officer entrusted with the duty to execute the orders and the directions issued by this court fails to do so or violates the directions for some extraneous 4
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62036421/ 1

Unknown vs State Of J&Amp;K &Amp; Ors on 24 December, 2012

consideration then the respondents are not without power to initiate appropriate proceedings and they do not need any liberty from the Courts for taking any action against such persons. Therefore, the directions issued by Hon ble the Supreme Court as well as this Court have to be complied with in letter and spirit. In case any complaints of same nature as have been furnished to us or received in future then we would be constrained to hold the Director General of Police personally responsible for such a lapse as has been desired by Hon ble the Supreme Court. 4. The matter of removal of black films and tinted glasses is closely connected with the safety of female passengers to completely eradicate the menance of eve-teasing. In that regard Mr. Kapoor has placed on record a latest judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court rendered in case of Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. v. S. Samuthiram (Civil Appeal No. 8513 of 2012), arising out of SLP(C) No. 31592 of 2008 decided on 5 30.11.2012. In the concluding para 32, comprehensive directions have been issued a by reference has been made to the Bill pending in the Parliament known as Protection of Woman against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010 . Their Lordships have observed that provisions of the Bill are not sufficient to curb eve-teasing and some urgent measures are required to be taken so that it can be curtailed to some extent. In the larger public interest, the following directions have been issued: (1) All the State Governments and Union Territories re directed to depute plain clothed female police officers in the precincts of bus-stands and stops, railway stations, metro stations, cinema theatres, shopping malls, parks, beaches, public service vehicles, places of worship etc. so as to monitor and supervise incidents of eve-teasing. (2) There will be a further direction to the State Government and Union Territories to install CCTV in strategic positions which itself would be a deterrent and if detected, the offender could be caught. (3) Persons in-charge of the educational institutions, places of worship, cinema theatres, railway stations, bus-stands have to take steps as they deem fit to prevent eve-teasing, within their precincts and, on a complaint being made. They must pass on the information to the nearest police station or the Women s Help Centre. (4) Where any incident of eve-teasing is committed in a public service vehicle either by the passengers or the person in charge of the vehicle, the crew of such vehicle shall on a complaint made by the aggrieved person take such vehicle to the nearest police station and give information to the police. Failure to do so should lead to cancellation of the permit to ply. (5) State Government and Union Territories are directed to establish Women Helpline in various cities and towns, so as to curb eve-teasing within three months. 6 (6) Suitable boards cautioning such act of eve-teasing be exhibited in all public places including precincts of educational institutions, bus stands, railway stations cinema theatres, parties, beaches, public service vehicles, places of worship etc. (7) Responsibility is also on the passers-by and on noticing such incidents, they should also report the same to the nearest police stations or to Women Helpline to save the victims from such crimes. (8) The State Governments and Union Territories of India would take adequate and effective measures by issuing suitable instructions to the concerned authorities including the District Collectors and the District Superintendent of Police so as to take effective and proper measures to curb such incidents of eveteasing. 5. The aforesaid directions are binding on all the States, Union Territories including the State of J&K. Accordingly the State shall file a status report as to what steps are being taken by it with regard to compliance of the aforesaid directions issued by the Hon ble the Supreme Court. 6. The State shall also apprise the Court whether the Committees, which are required to be constituted in pursuance of the directions issued by Hon ble the Supreme Court in case titled Vishaka and others v State
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62036421/ 2

Unknown vs State Of J&Amp;K &Amp; Ors on 24 December, 2012

of Rajasthan , (1997) 6 SCC 241, are in place or not. If such committees are in place then their details be also furnished. 7 7. Mr. Kapoor also pointed out that some of the Escort vehicles do not carry any registration number on the plates displayed on those Govt. vehicles. Some explanation needs to be offered with that issue also. 8. The learned Advocate General has raised one issue that the residents of far flung areas are facing difficulty when their vehicles are impounded because applications for release of such vehicles are competent in the Jammu Wing of the High Court alone. Keeping in view the aforesaid difficulty, we grant liberty to such applicants to present their applications before Registrar Judicial, Srinagar Wing, who shall transmit the same to the Jammu Wing of the High Court for placing the same before the appropriate Bench. 9. In CMA No. 21/2012, the violation of the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court dated 28.11.2006 has been pointed out. Para 11 of the order take note of the nuisance 8 caused by the Tractor Trolleys and the same reads as under: The Tractor trolleys are said to be major nuisance in Jammu city as these are allegedly being used for commercial purposes which contravenes the provisions of M. V. Rules. The movement of these Tractor trolleys within the city is accordingly banned. The IGP, Police Jammu, SSP Jammu and SSP, Traffic Jammu are directed to take necessary steps to enforce this ban by asking their checking patrols at Police check posts to ensure that no tractor trolley was allowed entry within the city limits . 10. The application reveals, by attaching photographs (Annexure-B) that a tractor trolley was caught at 10.30 am on 12.11.2012 in front of Government Girls Hostel, Government Medical College, Jammu. The allegation is that the traffic police took bribe from the driver and permitted him to go inside the Medical College where construction work is in progress. 11. In the reply on the blog, Ms Manjeet Kour has stated that the order to ban tractor trolleys has been kept in abeyance by the Special Additional Mobile Magistrate, subject to outcome of the decision of the High Court in OWP titled as ALL J&K Taxi Sumo Transport Union vs State of J&K & Ors . In the reply Ms. Manjit Kour, Dy SP has 9 claimed that there is a special drive against the use of laminated/tinted glass vehicles and no tractor trolleys have been permitted to move in the city which might be used as commercial vehicles. Even such tractor trolleys which are used for agriculture purpose have been challaned and if they are found without any documents or violating any law, the traffic police Jammu is taking strict action against the violators either by challaning or by seizing such tractor trolleys. 12. According to Mr. Kapoor, specific allegations in para 3 of the application have not been controverted which should show that Dy SP is sticking to her stand taken in the entry recorded on the blog that the Special Additional Mobile Magistrate has kept the directions issued by this Court in abeyance which would imply that they are not bound by the directions issued by the Division Bench. 13. In view of the above, we call upon Ms. Manjit Kour, Dy SP, to file a specific affidavit with regard 10 to the entry made on the blog involving the decision taken by the Special Additional Mobile Magistrate and to disclose the communication to which reference has been made in the blog entry. 14. Let the matter be listed on 03.01.2013.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62036421/ 3

Unknown vs State Of J&Amp;K &Amp; Ors on 24 December, 2012

15. Registry to furnish a copy of the order to learned counsel for the parties. (Hasnain Massodi) (M. M. Kumar) Judge Chief Justice Jammu, 24.12.2012 Vijay

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62036421/