SC imposes Rs 25K fine on Centre for not responding to PIL

The Supreme Court today came down heavily on the Centre and imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on it for not replying to a plea seeking framing of guidelines for vehicles carrying protruding objects like iron rods and stationary ones which cause thousands of fatal mishaps across the country.
"Innocents are dying from haphazardly parked vehicles, protruding rods from trucks and for three years you did not change law or respond.
"Due to your indifference, thousands of people are losing their lives. How can you ask for more time? You have not filed counter affidavit for more than a year," a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said observed while hearing a PIL filed by NGO Save Life Foundation.

Initially, the bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and reacted sharply when the lawyer sought a lenient approach and more time.
"Is this a panchayat going on here? If you ask one more time then the cost would be Rs one lakh," it responded, forcing Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to intervene to save the day for the lawyer representing the Centre in the case.
"Please grant one more opportunity," Rohatgi pleaded.

The court then scaled down the fine to Rs 25,000 and granted four weeks time to the Centre to file the response.

"Despite final opportunity granted for the purpose in terms of our order dated October 30, 2015, the counsel appearing for Union of India has not chosen to file any counter affidavit. The Attorney General who appears today seeks one more opportunity to do the needful finally.
"Four weeks' time is granted to the respondent - Union of India -- for filing counter affidavit subject to the condition of payment of Rs 25,000 as costs to be deposited in the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Trust. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within one week thereafter," it said.
At the outset, the Centre said that it has changed the law with regard to vehicles carrying protruding objects as they can only carry such objects protruding one metre more than the size of the vehicles.

Senior advocate Indu Malhotra, appearing for the NGO,
highlighted issues regarding stationary vehicles causing accidents and said that Centre has not filed its reply in the case.
The court then asked the counsel, appearing for the Centre, as to why it has not been filed despite a direction to that effect nearly a year ago.
The NGO in its plea had contended that large number of accidents and fatalities were caused by "vehicles that are stationary, or stalled on streets, highways and expressways; and vehicles transporting [protruding] iron rods, angles, pipes, poles and other construction materials".