The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking directions to the Union and state government to conduct a study into the feasibility of implementing ‘moving garden’ on all possible vehicles.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi passed this order, while hearing a PIL filed by K. Suresh.
The Counsel for the petitioner, by inviting the court attention to certain photographs and news items which are placed on record, submits that for a long period, the petitioner has been utilising his vehicle as a ‘moving garden’.
He submitted that the petitioner has converted the roof of his vehicle as a garden and by this ‘moving garden’, there would be an increase in oxygen, which would help in decreasing air pollution.
He further submitted that the petitioner has forwarded letters to various authorities, including the persons who are at higher positions.
It is the submission of the counsel that the respondents be directed to conduct a study into the feasibility of implementing ‘moving garden’ on all the possible vehicles and if the same is feasible, the State Government be directed to implement the said concept which would help in maintenance of ecology and environment.
The Court said that though the attempt made by the petitioner on his own vehicle is appreciable and the submission of the counsel for the petitioner looks very attractive at the first blush, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the way of use of vehicle is the choice of the owners of the vehicles.
Issuing directions to the State Government to conduct a study regarding feasibility of implementing ‘moving garden’ concept and to implement the said concept compulsorily are infringement of choice of the owners of the vehicles.
The implementation of such concept by making modification to the vehicles is also not in consonance with the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.
“Considering all these aspects and the prayers made in the petition, we are of the opinion that this petition cannot be treated as a Public Interest Litigation,” the Court observed, while dismissing the petition.