Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Sept 15: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice B S Walia today issued direction for exploring the possibility of construction of flyover from Ambphalla to High Court and sought a proposal in this regard within a period of three weeks.
The direction was issued to a committee of officers which was constituted in compliance to an order dated August 14, 2017 issued by the Division Bench in a Public Interest Litigation on security of courts. The committee includes Registrar General as well as the President, Bar Association Jammu. This committee was directed to convene a meeting within a period of two weeks.
However, when the matter was taken up today, AAG submitted that the meeting could not be convened within a period of two weeks and the same is scheduled to be held on September 20 at Srinagar. “Thereafter, the committee shall inspect the High Court premises as well as the District Court premises and convene the 2nd meeting at Jammu within a period of one week to ascertain the requirements vis-à-vis security of courts”, the AAG further submitted.
Earlier, Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi appearing for the petitioner submitted that the members of the Bar as well as public-in-general are parking their vehicles on the road and even in the park which is situated in front of the District Court Complex and not in dedicated parking space which has been constructed by spending an amount of Rs 3 crore.
“This fact is also discernible from the communication sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Traffic Jammu to the President Bar Association”, he further submitted.
In view of prevailing situation and to ensure security of the High Court as well as District Court, Division Bench directed Senior Superintendent of Police, Traffic Jammu to take action to ensure that the members of the Bar Association as well as the public-in-general park their vehicles in the parking slots, failing which, the traffic personnel shall be at liberty to tow away the vehicles and seize the same.
Senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even though the respondents have approved the plan for installation of 20 CCTV cameras in the High Court complex as well as 140 CCTV cameras in the District Court Complex yet there is no provision in the project report with regard to monitoring rooms. “The committee shall take into account the aspect of the matter and ensure that the provision is made for monitoring rooms”, the DB directed.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel