In presence of Noida CEO, HC issues directions on city's

The Allahabad High Court today directed the CEO of Noida Authority to come up with a "concrete plan" for providing multi-level parking lots in each sector of the city
It also sought a written undertaking that stilt spaces in buildings will not be allowed to be used "for any purpose other than parking of vehicles".
A division bench comprising Chief Justice D B Bhosle and Justice Yashwant Verma passed the order on a Public Interest Litigation filed by Noida resident Shrikant Vaidya, who drew the court's attention towards absence of adequate parking facilities and the resultant traffic congestion in the city adjoining the national capital.

According to counsel Priyanka Midha, who has been appointed as the amicus curae, the court issued the directions in presence of Noida CEO Amit Mohan Prasad and a number of other officials of the Authority.
Prasad, who took over on April 13, was appearing in person following the court order of April 11 whereby the Noida CEO had been directed to remain physically present on this date.
She said "the court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Noida CEO's submission, made orally, that as many as seven multi-level parking projects for the city were underway".

The court remarked "there are about 160 sectors in Noida and the city's parking problem will not be solved by only seven multi-level parking lots".

Taking note of Prasad's submission that the 7 projects aimed at providing parking space for nearly 13,000 vehicles in the city's commercial localities, the court added that the Authority must come up with plans to provide parking facilities in residential areas as well.
"Why don't your officers visit countries like Singapore and learn from them how to provide multi-level parking near residential areas so that no one has to park his car on the road," the court asked.
It also suggested that the Authority may "hire a professional firm which could conduct surveys to ascertain how much parking space was needed in each sector".

The court fixed May 18 as the next date of hearing in the matter.