Gurgaon expressway case: HC issues notice to Gurgaon ACP
- IPL spot-fixing: Delhi court drops charges against S Sreesanth and two other cricketers
- Nitish Kumar gets back at Modi, accuses him for 'not honouring promises'
- Major decisions on revision of role of women in armed forces on the anvil: Manohar Parrikar
- Congress, TMC and BJD to seek total withdrawal of NDA's land bill
- Never sought travel documents for Lalit Modi, says Sushma Swaraj
Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued a show cause notice to a Gurgaon ACP and a HUDA official asking them why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them for not complying with its October 8 order on Delhi-Gurgaon expressway toll plaza.
The court issued notices to ACP (traffic) Ravinder Tomar and Haryana Urban Development Authority Gurgaon Administrator Praveen Kumar for removing the barricades near the Ambience Mall and permitting right turn,thus violating the High Court's orders. It fixed the case for next hearing on November 1.
In its orders on last hearing in the case, the court had said the U-turn on the Expressway from Jaipur side for entering into Ambience Mall will only be used as a U-turn and not as a right turn (L-turn), while directing that the Gurgaon police will be responsible for any violation in this regard. The matter today came up for resumed hearing before the Division Bench headed by Justice S K Mittal.
Delhi Gurgaon Super Connectivity Limited (DGSCL)'s counsel apprised the court about measures taken to avoid traffic jams, saying these had worked well except for one day. The counsel further informed the court that the right turn was blocked on October 9 by putting up cement blocks and only U turn was permitted.
However, owing to protest by some persons, Parveen Kumar and the police had got the blocks removed the following day.
The court observed that the HUDA administrator had no authority to act against directions of the court and he was not even party in the case.
The court held that if the directions were not suitable or it was found that these could not be properly implemented, the court's doors were open and the officers could have approached the bench for modification of the orders.