AAP's vehicle plan: HC refuses to pass interim order on PIL
The High Court said it was too early to pass an order.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to pass any interim direction on the PILs filed against AAP government's plan to restrict plying of private vehicles from January 1 to combat pollution, saying it was too early to pass an order.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath termed the PILs as "premature" and said, "The Delhi government has proposed an idea, which is to be implemented from January 1, 2016, on trial basis for 15 days, so let them (Delhi government) try it."
"It's just going to be implemented on trial basis. They have proposed an idea for which suggestions have also been called form various stakeholders of society. Meetings are being held in this regard. Let's see what the stakeholders suggest," the bench observed orally.
It further said "also, no notification has been issued so far, let such notification come then we will see."
"We will take up the matter after two weeks, by when the suggestions may also reach to the government," the bench said and fixed the matter for further hearing on December 23.
The bench also said, "Don't use these PILs to pressurize the respondent (Delhi governments)."
The court's oral observation came during hearing the PILs, filed by Shweta Kapoor and Sarvesh Singh, which sought directions for restraining implementation of the policy.
Defending the Delhi government's idea, its senior standing counsel Rahul Mehra sought dismissal of the PILs and imposing of a heavy cost on the petitioners.
One of the petitioner has claimed that "imposition of such a policy/law would be contrary to public interest and has been imposed without any public debate or discussion and without understanding the situation and facts and circumstances in India".
It has also questioned whether the AAP government has the power to modify vehicular movement in the national capital.
Terming the national capital's public transportation system as "undeveloped and unsafe", the petitioner has said that it would create problems for women who travel alone as well as differently-abled persons who use modified vehicles to commute.