Highway ban litigations politically motivated, state tells High Court

Highway ban litigations politically motivated, state tells High Court

SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Friday was told by the state that the litigations filed against the highway ban order are “politically motivated interest litigations”.
Additional Advocate General (AAG) B A Dar told court that litigations filed by political parties on the highway ban order are nothing but “politically motivated interest litigations”. He submitted before court that the public concern has already been taken care of by the state and there is no absolute ban on the highway as the impression is being given.
He informed court that with respect to banning of civil traffic for two days on the highway, it was only taken for security concerns till a certain period of time.
He submitted that there is absolutely no ban and the authorities are not stopping anybody but are only regulating security issues concerning both citizens as well as security forces.
While on the other hand, Counsel M I Qadri, representing National Conference (NC) MLA Ali Mohammad Sagar, asked court that if the authorities are stating there is no ban, then why was a cancer patient stopped in the middle of the road which led to his death. “If medical emergencies are exempted, then why patients are not allowed?” Qadri asked.
Similarly, Counsel R A Jan, representing Raja Zahoor, also submitted before court that by this ban a commoner is at centrestage of difficulties.
He further submitted that the authorities need to justify this ban which is not less than harassment of the people of Kashmir.
While taking up six petitions filed by independent individuals as well as political parties – the NC, People’s Democratic Party, JK People’s Movement – the division bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Tashi Rabstan directed State Counsel BA Dar to file a response by 23 April, indicating therein the implementation of the Divisional Commissioner’s directions as well as response to the free access to medical emergencies and common commuters moving out for earning livelihood.
The court observed that a commoner moving out for a livelihood or for medical emergency or for study or some other genuine reason has to be given a free passage.
At a previous hearing, court had remarked that there cannot be an absolute ban on the highway.