हाई कोर्ट परिसर में लाल-नीली बत्ती नियमों का खुला उल्लंघन

सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता डॉ नूतन ठाकुर ने चीफ जस्टिस, इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट को अधीनस्थ न्यायिक सेवा के अधिकारियों द्वारा लाल नीली बत्ती के कथित गलत प्रयोग के सम्बन्ध में शिकायत भेजी है. शिकायत के अनुसार सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने हाल में एसएलपी (सिविल) संख्या 25237/2010 अभय सिंह बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश शासन में लाल नीली बत्तियों के दुरुपयोग पर भारी नाराजगी दिखाई थी और इनके सम्बन्ध में कई निर्देश दिए थे. इनके अनुपालन में उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार ने भी अधिसूचना संख्या 352 /XXX-4-14-8(1)/2013 तथा 354 /XXX-4-14-8(1)/2013, दिनांक 10 मार्च 2014 द्वारा क्रमशः वाहनों पर लाल और नीली बत्ती के प्रयोग के बारे में निर्देश जारी किये थे.

 

इन अधिसूचना के अनुसार अधीनस्थ न्यायपालिका में जिला जज और समकक्ष अधिकारी एवं सीजेएम अपने सरकारी वाहन पर नीली बत्ती लगा सकते हैं. ये नीली बत्ती मात्र अधिकारी के शासकीय वाहन पर ही लग सकती है. इसके विपरीत डॉ ठाकुर ने पिछले दिनों हाई कोर्ट के लखनऊ बेंच परिसर में खड़े 10 ऐसे निजी वाहनों का विवरण प्रस्तुत किया है जिनपर न्यायाधीश, जज, एडीजे आदि लिखा था और ऊपर नीली बत्ती लगी थी. उन्होंने इसी प्रकार के 5 अन्य निजी वाहनों के फोटोग्राफ भी प्रस्तुत किये हैं. उन्होंने इन तथ्यों की जांच करा कर कार्यवाही करने और न्यायिक सेवा के अधिकारियों द्वारा इन अधिसूचना का पूर्ण अनुपालन किये जाने के निर्देश दिए जाने की प्रार्थना की है.

संलग्न- शिकायत की कॉपी

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice,

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,

Allahabad

Subject- Alleged violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order by various Judicial officers of Uttar Pradesh

Your Lordship,

1. The applicant, Dr Nutan Thakur, wife of Sri Amitabh Thakur, resident of 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow is a social activist who undertakes various social causes related with different aspects of society, particularly as regards transparency and accountability in governance.

2. That in compliance of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 10/12/2013 in Special Leave Petition (c) 25237/2010 and under the powers conferred in Notification No S.O. 52 (E) Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India dated 11/01/2002 and under rule 108 & 119 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act no 10 of 1897) and in suppression of notification no 1772/30-4-2007- 25P/77 dated 23 August, 2007, 1397/30-4-2008-25P/77 dated 4 July, 2008, and 1462/30-4-10-25P/77 dated 22 July, 2010, the Government of Uttar Pradesh through notification no. 352 /XXX-4-14-8(1)/2013, dated
10/03/2014 specified that the vehicles carrying high dignitaries enumerated in the notification shall be permitted to use Red light with flasher on the top front of the vehicle and Red light without flasher on the top front of the vehicle. A copy of this notification is being attached as Annexure No 1.

3. That it was stated in the Notification that High dignitaries of above categories shall be permitted to use light in U.P. while on Government duty and in case the vehicle fitted with red light on top front is not carrying the dignitaries, then such red light shall not be used and be covered by a black cover. Again it was specified that Red light shall be permissible to the high dignitaries only on Govt. Vehicle.

4. That similarly through notification no. 354 /XXX-4-14-8(1)/2013, dated 10/03/2014,  in suppression of notification no 1772/30-4-2007-25p/77 dated 23 August, 2007 and notification no 2008/30-4-2008-25p/77 dated 15 October, 2008 the Government of Uttar Pradesh specified that the vehicles carrying officers of the State enumerated in the notification shall be permitted to use blue light on the middle part of the roof of the vehicle and Red light without flasher on the top front of the vehicle. A copy of this notification is being attached as Annexure No 2.

5. That among these officers there are the District Judge and Officers of Higher Judicial Services equivalent to District Judge presented at Item No 9 of this Notification while there are Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate as per order of Hon’ble High Court Allahabad, Lucknow bench in Writ Petition no 3648 (M/B)/2006 at Item No 16.

6. That here again it has been stated that in case the vehicle fitted with blue light on top front is not carrying the dignitaries, then such blue light shall not be used and be covered by a black cover and Blue light shall be permissible to the officers only on Government Vehicles.

7. That unlike these Government orders, the petitioner presents the ground realities of the actual compliance of these Government Notifications by Judicial officers of the State.

8. That the petitioner presents the vehicle number and certain other details of various vehicles parked in front of the temple and police outpost in the campus of the Lucknow bench of the Hon’ble High Court on 19/06/2014 and 20/06/2014 where the result was quite disturbing.

9. That a total of 11 private vehicles, 10 of them parked in front of the temple and police outpost and one parked near the Post office, had blue beacon on the top of the vehicle. These are UP 32DA 5841 Hyundai car with “Nyayadheesh” written on the car, , UP27E 2131 Maruti, UP 32FL 3061 Maruti car with Judge written on it, UP 70 AS 7678 Wagon R with ADJ written on it, UP 32 CY 5089 Hyundai i10 with Judge written on it, UP 32 DM 8456 Hyundai i10 with “Nyayadheesh” written on it, UP 32 BT 4348 Maruti Zen with “Nyayadheesh”
written on it, UP 70 AU 8920 Hyundai i10, UP 35C 3121Maruti with Judge written on it and UP 32CM 3748.

10. That there was only one vehicle No UP 78A 6127 with Judge written on it which did not have a blue beacon on its top.

11. That in addition, the petitioner has photographs of various vehicles No UP 53X 7211 Maruti Zen with Judge written on it, UP 32AV 9772 Maruti with “nyayadheesh” written on it, UP 78CH 0766 Honda with Judge written on it and UP 32FL 4848 which had blue beacon on them.

12. That the petitioner has photograph of a vehicle No UP 32 EV 0060 XL car which has “Nyayasheesh” written on it and has a Red beacon on its top.

13.  That the petitioner is not completely sure whether the vehicles she found outside the Hon’ble High Court campus with “Judge”, “Nyayadheesh” etc written on them were actually the vehicles of the members of UP judicial services or were merely false claims made by the imposters who were using these vehicles with blue or red beacons with false claims of being judicial officers. This is a point that needs to be kindly verified.

14. That but on the contrary, there can be no doubt that the various vehicles present in the Hon’ble High Court campus which Judge, Nyayadheesh, ADJ etc written on them could not be that of imposters and in all certainty would be belonging to the judicial officers.

15. That in such circumstances the issues that naturally crop up are- (a) The notification about Red light does not mention any judicial officer. Hence how come is some judicial officer using the red beacon on his vehicle no UP 32EV 0060? (b) The notification about Blue beacon only mentions the District Judge and Officers of Higher Judicial Services equivalent to District Judge and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate as being entitled to use blue beacon. But among these vehicles, many seem to be
either Additional District Judges or other subordinate judicial officers who do not belong to the category of District Judge and their equivalent officers or CJM/CMM. This would definitely be true about the various vehicles found in the Hon’ble High Court campus because to the best of petitioner’s knowledge, there is only one officer of District Judge rank in the High Court registry of Lucknow bench and hence all other vehicles of subordinate judicial officers does not seem to be entitled to use blue beacon. Hence how come are those judicial officers, not in the marked category, using blue beacon on their vehicles?

16. Most importantly, it has been clearly stated that Blue light shall be permissible to the officers only on Government Vehicles. Thus any blue beacon on any of the private vehicles is not permitted in any manner. Thus even the District Judge, CJM, CMM etc are permitted to use blue beacon vehicle only on their official government vehicle and not on their personal vehicles. All the vehicles mentioned above are private vehicles, as can be easily seen. Yet these judicial officers seem to be using blue or red beacon on their private vehicles against the Government notification.

17. That thus it is extremely sad that among all, it is the judicial officers who seem to be violating the law of the land and using blue/red beacon on their private vehicles, despite not being entitled to do so

18. That it is even more disturbing that many of these judicial officers seem to be violating the law of the land even in the Hon’ble High Court premises

19. That finally it also needs to be kindly noted that these notifications were framed on the directions and in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which seem to be violated by the judicial officers

20. That these are only a few examples being presented in this regards. The petitioner is sure there would be many more of this kind all over the State

21. That Your Lordship would agree with the petitioner that the alleged defiance of the law of the land made in compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court orders by judicial officers is an extremely serious issue and appropriate action needs to be taken in this regards

22. That hence the petitioner, working in the field of accountability and transparency, feeling greatly pained and disturbed by this alleged defiance of law of the land brings this matter before Your Lordship for appropriate
action and makes the following prayers

*PRAYERS*

1.  Kindly direct an appropriate enquiry into the facts presented by the petitioner through this complaint so as to take appropriate action against those found guilty as per the enquiry report

2.  Kindly direct all the Judicial officers of the State to fully comply with the two notifications no 352/XXX-4-14-8(1)/2013, dated 10/03/2014 (Annexure No 1) and 354/XXX-4-14-8(1)/2013, dated 10/03/2014 (Annexure No 2) in their letter and spirit

3.  Kindly issue specific directions to all the judicial officers of the State that any further violation of these two notifications by judicial officers of the State shall be seriously dealt with in the strictest manner

Lt No- NT/AHC/HJS

Yours sincerely,
Dated- 21/06/2014

(Dr Nutan Thakur)

5/426, Viram Khand,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

094155-34525

nutanthakurlko@gmail.com

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें:

Comments on “हाई कोर्ट परिसर में लाल-नीली बत्ती नियमों का खुला उल्लंघन

  • vivek shalya says:

    सतेन्द्र सिंह पुत्र महिंद्रा सिंह निवासी 18/160C-4एम् पी पूरा गुम्मट ताजगंज आगरा प्रेस फोटोग्राफर अमर उजाला आगरा के द्वारा ,अमर उजाला प्रेस का पुलिस, प्रशासन पर
    दवाब बनाया जा रहा है कि मामले में विवेचना न की जाये ।
    इस सब से अमर उजाला प्रेस की छवी ख़राब करने की कोशिश की जा रही है ।

    निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी ने एक F.I.R 326/2013 धारा 420,467,468,471,120बी ipc सतेन्द्र सिंह राजेंद्र सिंह ब्रिजेन्द्र सिंह जोगिन्द्र सिंह पुत्र महिंद्रा सिंह निवासी 18/160 C 4 न्यू एम् पि पूरा गुम्मट ताजगंज आगरा के खिलाफ थाना ताजगंज आगरा पर दर्ज कराई,लेकिन प्रेस के दखल होने की वजह से पुलिस द्वारा एक साल से कोई विवेचना नहीं की गई ,जब की तीन माह मे विवेचना कराने का नियम है।
    सतेन्द्र सिंह आदि ने प्रार्थी की जमीन को कब्जाने के लिए न्यायलय तहसीलदार आगरा के दिनांक 11.1.13 को फर्जी आदेश तैयार किये जिसकी न्यायालय के आदेश पर FIR दर्ज हुई है।
    अत: विनम्र निवेदन है कि मामले की जाच करा कर आवश्यक कारवाही कराने की कृपा करें ताकि प्रार्थी को न्याय मिल सके।

    प्रार्थी
    विवेक शल्या
    18/160C3 m.p.pura
    Gummat Tajganj Agra
    9837855501

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *