Today in New Delhi, India
Dec 13, 2018-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Traffic management: HC warns Nainital admn of contempt

The Uttarakhand high court on Monday asked the Nainital district administration to explain why contempt proceeding be not initiated against its officials for failing to implement its directions meant to improve traffic management in the tourist town

dehradun Updated: Jun 11, 2018 22:32 IST
Hindustan Times, Nainital
A division bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Lokpal Singh issued the noticed while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Nainital-based activist Ajay Singh Rawat in 2012.(HT Photo)

The Uttarakhand high court on Monday asked the Nainital district administration to explain why contempt proceeding be not initiated against its officials for failing to implement its directions meant to improve traffic management in the tourist town.

Issuing the notices to district magistrate; senior superintendent of police; secretary, district development authority, and executive officer Nainital municipality, the court asked them to reply within a week.

A division bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Lokpal Singh issued the noticed while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Nainital-based activist Ajay Singh Rawat in 2012.

The petitioner had demanded that the fragile hill station be declared an eco-sensitive zone. Later several related petitions were clubbed with the original petition, KH Gupta, counsel for one of the petitioners, in the case said.

Gopal K Verma, counsel for one of the interveners in the case, said that the court was not happy that their earlier directions, especially the ones issued on May 10, were not complied with by the authorities concerned.

On May 10, the court had directed a private contractor who is laying optical fibre cable network in Nainital to deposit with the district administration a surety of Rs 10 lakh within 48 hours and complete the works within 10 days. In case the contractor failed to complete the work in the stipulated time, the surety amount was to be forfeited.

Verma said the court was not happy with the fact that the surety of Rs 10 lakh had not been realized from the private contractor even though the works have not been completed. “The court ordered that the work by the contractor be stopped immediately,” Verma said.

First Published: Jun 11, 2018 22:32 IST