Those Who Own One Flat Shouldn’t Be Allowed 4-5 Cars: Bombay High Court

Mustn’t allow one household to have 4-5 automobiles simply because they’ll afford it, the excessive court docket mentioned

Mumbai:

Expressing anguish over the shortage of any uniform coverage in Maharashtra over designated parking areas for automobiles, the Bombay Excessive Courtroom has mentioned that authorities should not permit residents to personal a number of private automobiles in the event that they did not have satisfactory parking house.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni mentioned on Thursday that authorities “mustn’t permit households proudly owning just one flat to have 4 or 5 vehicles if they don’t have ample parking house” accessible of their respective housing societies.

The bench was listening to a public curiosity litigation (PIL) filed by a Navi Mumbai resident and activist Sandeep Thakur, difficult a authorities notification that amended the Unified Improvement Management and Promotion Rules Guidelines, allowing builders to scale back automotive parking house.

Mr Thakur mentioned in his plea that builders don’t present ample parking areas in new condo colonies, thereby forcing residents to park exterior the premises of the housing society.

“Discount within the buy of latest vehicles is required. You possibly can’t allow one household to have 4 to 5 automobiles simply because they’ll afford it. You need to cross-check if they’ve parking areas or not,” the excessive court docket mentioned.

The excessive court docket questioned the foundations challenged within the PIL and mentioned there might be “chaos if a correct coverage on automobile parking just isn’t formulated”.

“All roads are flooded with automobiles and in every single place, 30 per cent house of roads is taken away by parking on each side. It’s a frequent phenomenon,” it mentioned.

“These are real public issues which need to be considered to provide you with long-term measures in order that we wouldn’t have a chaotic society. There needs to be a coverage in place.”

The excessive court docket directed state’s counsel Manish Pable to file a reply to the PIL inside two weeks.
 

(Aside from the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV employees and is revealed from a syndicated feed.)