Home / Latest News / After Supreme Court barb, now Delhi High Court asks Delhi Govt. why not close Odd-Even Scheme this week itself

After Supreme Court barb, now Delhi High Court asks Delhi Govt. why not close Odd-Even Scheme this week itself

High-Court-of-Delh
High-Court-of-Delh

January,6,2016: The Delhi high court on Wednesday asked the State Government why it was necessary to run the odd-even traffic rule for more than a week, and wondered if it could end the scheme meant to check city’s pollution by Friday.

“What is the need to run odd-even scheme after a week?” the court asked. “You will have to admit that you don’t have enough public transport to ferry the public.”

The court also sought a report from the Arvind Kejriwal government on changes in the level of pollution in the national capital since the scheme came into effect on January 1.

On Tuesday, the government said the cut in vehicular emission due to the scheme has shown “definitive decline” in levels of PM2.5 pollutants and claimed the there has been a “positive impact” of the 15-day experiment so far.

“According to the scientists of the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), 80 per cent of PM2.5 air pollution is caused by vehicular traffic and reduction in its levels, even in outer areas of Delhi shows that reduction of four wheeled vehicles on roads since the New Year Day is having a positive impact,” the government said in a statement.

However, a report by IIT Kanpur said vehicular pollution contributes to around 25 per cent of PM2.5 concentrations during winters which comes down to 9 per cent during the summers.

Experts have warned against expecting any dramatic reduction in the amount of respirable particulate matters, PM 2.5 and PM 10, which depend on a host of atmospheric parameters.

However, they dismiss murmurs that the pilot plan has yielded little gains, with ecologists and urban planners arguing that while hostile weather conditions may be limiting the gains, it would definitely restrict the peak levels from spiraling out of hand.

 

 

Source - PTI

Facebook Comments

Check Also

Lord Ganesha used in a non-veg commercial

Australian refuses to ban advertisement of Meat Products depicting Lord Ganesha

Australian refuses to ban advertisement of Meat Products depicting Lord Ganesha

One comment

  1. Praveen Mandawaria

    Retirement age of judges of supreme court and high courts have been fixed by constitution itself. How can it offend art.14/16 ? If art. 124(2) is challenged as unconstitutional means it is a challenge against the constitution. How can supreme court which is created under the constitution can declare art.124 as it originally stood in the constitution as unconstitutional. It it done, it will mean the supreme court act above the constitution which can not be. It can only be done by the people only through their representative under art.368. Moreover, if any attorney general is appointed or is continued in the office over 65 years of age, that can be challenged by quo warrento writ.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *