Odd-even formula: Consider disabled commuters, says HC

New Delhi, Dec 23 (IANS) Refusing to stay plying of vehicles in the national capital with odd-even formula, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the state government to take into consideration the issues of physically challenged commuters while formulating the scheme – and said it would hear the matte on January 6, 2016.

The court also took note of Delhi government’s submission that the “scheme has not been finalised yet”. The scheme, which is to be notified on December 25, will run January 1-15, 2016 on a trial basis.

A division bench of Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath said: “The Delhi government shall take into consideration the concerns of various sections of society, including physically challenged people, while making the scheme on odd-even numbers issue.

“What precautions you (Delhi government) have taken so that they don’t have to face any problems? You should take into consideration their concerns,” the court remarked.

The court was hearing a bunch of public interest litigations challenging the Aam Aadmi Party government’s decision early this month to only allow even and odd numbered vehicles to ply in Delhi on alternative dates from January 1 for 15 days.

The court noted that one of the petitioners was a physically challenged person.

The odd-even formula will not apply to auto-taxis, public transport and emergency vehicles like ambulances.

One of the petitioners, Nipun Malhotra, pleaded for allowing the physically challenged commuters to use their own vehicles since public transport was not disabled friendly.

The court earlier refused to restrain the AAP government from enforcing its odd-even formula, saying the decision is on a “trial basis”.

The PILs filed earlier said the government announced its plan to restrict the number of cars on roads without first conducting a public debate and a study of the pros and cons of a system based on whether the registration number of a motor vehicle ends in an even or odd digit.

The petitioners said the decision was taken without considering the disturbing effect it would have on the public at large.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply