The Orissa High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought the removal of overhead and mobile barricades installed at Sector 10 in the Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) area. The court ruled that rising road accidents demand proactive safety measures and that courts should not ordinarily interfere with empirical data-based government policy decisions aimed at protecting the public.
Court's Observation on Safety
“Safety and security cannot be compromised by any stretch of imagination,” observed a two-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman on May 20. The web copy of the judgment was released on Friday.
While hearing the PIL filed by four residents of the CDA area—Khageswar Sethi, Manoj Kumar Pati, Manoranjan Dash, and Sangita Ratha—the court also underlined the responsibility of authorities to adopt preventive measures against road mishaps. The Bench held that the measures were aimed at ensuring public safety and preventing accidents in the residential locality.
Petitioner's Allegations
Pati, president of the CDA Sector-10 puja committee, who appeared in court in person, alleged that the barricades had drastically reduced the width of the road and created obstruction for buses and emergency vehicles, including ambulances. Pati further alleged that the barricades were “unauthorised obstruction” on the road.
Government's Defense
The state and CDA authorities argued that the overhead barriers were installed primarily to prevent heavy vehicles from entering the locality at high speed, which could endanger the lives and property of residents. Appearing for the state, additional government advocate Sanjeeb Kumar Swain informed the court that there was no restriction on the movement of ambulances during emergencies. Senior advocate Dayananda Mohapatra, representing the CDA authorities, submitted that city buses continued to ply on the route, and that public transport had not been affected.
Court's Findings
Taking on record the submissions, the High Court observed that the overhead and mobile barricades, shown to the court in photographs, did not appear to be permanent structures. The Bench noted that such barricades are often installed to slow down speeding vehicles and minimise the risk of accidents, particularly in densely populated residential areas.
The judges pointed out that the locality was primarily residential in nature and inhabited by families, including children who regularly cross roads for going to schools, playgrounds, and markets. Observing that the barricades were temporary and emergency movement was not completely obstructed, the High Court found no merit in the PIL and dismissed the petition.
