It deferred the hearing in a PIL related to the rampaging Blueline buses saying it could hear the matter only after the issue of "judicial restraint" was clarified by the apex court.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on thursday deferred the hearing in a PIL related to the rampaging Blueline buses saying it could hear the matter only after the issue of "judicial restraint" was clarified by the apex court.
A division bench of Justices Vikramjit Sen and P K Bhasin said "What is the hurry? Let us wait for the outcome of the petition, filed before the Supreme Court on the issue."
Dismissing a contention that the apex court ruling did not apply to this case, the court said it could hear the matter only when the issue of "judicial restraint" was clarified by the Supreme Court.
The court then posted the matter, which was earlier instituted as PIL after it had taken suo-motu cognizance of news reports relating to road accidents in the capital involving Blueline buses, to February 5.
Senior advocate Kailash Vasudev, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae (friend of court), submitted that the ruling of Justices Markendaya Katju and A K Mathur of the Supreme Court did not apply on this case as "the High Court is not going to frame any law on the Blueline menace."
"The SC ruling says that the judiciary cannot frame laws, but it can only ensure compliance of existing laws," he said, adding that the earlier apex court guidelines/rulings, which were as effective as the present one, have not been adhered to by the Blueline bus operators.
"This court, when it took suo-motu cognizance of the menace last year, had considered the Supreme Court guidelines following the infamous accident on Yamuna bridge which had killed several school children," he said.
Meanwhile, the court also refused to entertain the plea of Blueline bus operators that the NCT government be restrained from inviting fresh applications for issuing licences, which originally belonged to buses impounded for violating traffic rules.
Earlier, another Bench of the Court had refused to hear the matter on the similar grounds.
The Supreme Court, on December 10 last year, had asked given strong observations against the recent taking up petitions on issues related to the begging menace, nursery admission and traffic issues particularly the Blueline bus menace.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}