BANGALURU HAS 500 BUT PUBLIC DEMANDS 25000 AND MORE FREE “PUBLIC TOILETS” The BBMP is obligated to provide toilets as part of social infrastructure in the city as per the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Many roads in Bangalore have become are notoriously free public toilets. BBMP should come out with a scheme of free public toilets as a city where several lakhs people are below poverty line how they are expected to pay you money for urinating in Public toilets by paying one rupee when they cannot pay for their daily food. They will be forced to urinate in public road as they will not have money for their food only. Bangaluru city used to have 100 wards but today the numbers have gone up to 198 wards. According to data available with the BBMP, for a population of 96.2 lakh, there are about 500 public toilets, out of which only 200 are functional. That means that there is 1 toilet available for every 19,000 people. The Garden City that boasts of being home to the largest number of software companies and engineering colleges unfortunately lacks the basic facilities of having enough toilets .According to reports, the corporators received a sum of Rs5 crore for development of wards. “The public came to us asking us to build public-toilets and we built 3-4 public toilets in their areas,” said , a corporator. Around 1 crore people reside in Bangalore and the city is visited by over 2 crore people every day. Having said that, corporator said that Bangalore requires at least 25,000 public toilets to suffice the requirement. The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has finally woken up to the need for well-maintained toilets across the city. BBMP Commissioner M. Lakshminarayan agreed and said the BBMP would float expression of interest from agencies to maintain the existing toilets. Public Toilets: Public toilets can be constructed on public private participation basis. BBMP is not just committed to sanctioning funds to construct public toilets in each ward, but also directed the Commissioner to explore the possibility of maintaining the existing toilets on a public-private partnership (PPP) basis. BBMP take up construction of public toilets under PPP. He said that the agencies could be allowed to put up advertisement hoardings on the toilets and maintain the toilets. The BBMP is obligated to provide toilets as part of social infrastructure in the city as per the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. As per a survey, he claimed that the city needs at least 15,000 toilets. Public e-Toilets: The Bangalore needs more toilets, especially near skywalks, bus shelters and parks.“BBMP need to consider constructing e-toilets, akin to those in Kerala. The cost of each toilet is around `4.5 lakh,” and users will have to insert a one rupee coin to use the toilets. “It is fully automated. It will be flushed automatically,” . Concept e-toilets ; Salient features of e-toilets ■ Built of steel ■ Sleek and require less space ■ Sensor-based functions ■ Environment-friendly as water can be treated ■ Consumes less water and power The BBMP is obligated: The BBMP is obligated to provide toilets as part of social infrastructure in the city as per the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.BBMP must provide water and electricity free of cost to these Public Toilets. Otherwise theses toilets will become dysfunctional as running them profitable is not feasible at all places. “No need to issue notices to The toilet operators in respect of water and electricity bills. No need to cut the water line once, it is inconvenience to the public and need to amend rules and resume supply of water and electricity free of cost to these Public Toilets . Higher authorities at BBMP, need to take further step to amend rules as The BBMP is obligated to provide toilets as part of social infrastructure in the city as per the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 . Sonia Gandhi led UPA Government did several welfare Acts .But Karnataka Government is not implementing them despite court orders. BBMP & UDD NOT IMPLEMENTED THE STREET VENDORS (PROTECTION OF LIVELIHOOD AND REGULATION OF STREET VENDING) ACT, 2014 DESPITE COURT ORDERS. “Street vendors constitute an integral part of our urban economy. Street vending is not only a source of self-employment to the poor in cities and towns but also a means to provide ‘affordable’ as well as ‘convenient’ services to a majority of the urban population, especially the common man. Street vendors are often those who are unable to get regular jobs in the remunerative formal sector on account of their low level of education and skills. They try to solve their livelihoods issues through their own meagre financial resources and sweat equity. Given the pace of urbanization and the opportunities presented through the development of urban areas, the growth of street vendors’ population is likely to have an upward trend. It is vital that these vendors are enabled to pursue their livelihoods in a congenial and harassment free atmosphere. Inclusive growth strategy adopted by the 11th and 12th Five Year Plans calls for a facilitating mechanism for street vending to aid economic growth and inclusion simultaneously.” The Karnataka high court reportedly asked BBMP to continue clearing footpath encroachments in the city while ensuring that rights of hawkers are protected. The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, shouldnt be violated, a division bench headed by Chief Justice D H Waghela reportedly had said. The bench adjourned a PIL filed by Jennifer Pinto and Priya Rao on the rights of pedestrians. The bench noted that hawkers have a legal right and it must be protected. “You (BBMP) need to get this clear. In an issue like this, there is a conflict between the right of persons to walk, the right of persons to sell and also the right of those who to buy. Any half-hearted attempt only increases corruption,“ the division bench reportedly told BBMP counsel. The Counsel said a scheme may be framed for hawkers at the meeting called by the urban development department Government of Karnataka. Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted to regulate street vendors in public areas and protect their rights. It was introduced in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of the Parliament of India) on September 6, 2012 by then Union Minister of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Kumari Selja .The Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on 6 September 2013 and by the Rajya Sabha (upper house) on 19 February 2014. The bill received the assent of the President of India on 4 March 2014. The Act came into force from 1 May 2014. The bill was drafted with the help of the National Advisory Council, chaired by Sonia Gandhi, and approved by the Union Cabinet on August 17, 2012. The key point of the draft bill were, protection legitimate street vendors from harassment by police and civic authorities, and demarcation of vending zones on the basis of traditional natural markets, proper representation of vendors and women in decision making bodies, and establishment of effective grievance redressal and dispute resolution mechanism. Over the years the street vendors have organized themselves into trade unions and associations, and numerous NGOs have started working for them. The National Association of Street Vendors of India (NASVI), based in Delhi, is a federation of 715 street vendor organizations, trade unions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted to regulate street vendors in public areas and protect their rights. Pedestrian are killed every day because of gross negligence of BBMP and BDA and BMRDA .Police should file cases on the Engineers and corporators and officers and people belonging to BBMP and BDA who are responsible in the respective areas and wards under section 304-A of I.P.C . The original Indian Penal Code, 1860 had no provision providing punishment for causing death by negligence. Section 304-A was inserted in the Code in 1870 by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1870. This section did not create a new offence but was directed towards the offences which fall outside the range of section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as I.P.C.) when neither intention nor knowledge to cause death is present. The said section reads as follows: 304A. Causing death by negligence.--Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both..The provisions of this section apply to cases where there is no intention to cause death, and no knowledge that the act done in all probability would cause death. The Supreme Court has clarified that the section 304-A of I.P.C. is applicable only when death is caused due to rash and negligent act of the accused, which is an essential element to attract said provision.This section deals with homicide by negligence and covers that class of offences, where death is caused neither intentionally nor with the knowledge that the act of the offender is likely to cause death, but because of the rash and negligent act of the offender. This clause limits itself to rash and negligent acts which cause death, but falls short of culpable homicide of either description. When any of the two elements, namely, intention or knowledge, is present this section has no application. Intentional shooting at a fleeing person and hitting someone else to death comes under the section 300 read with section 301 of the I.P.C. It is not a negligent act so as to come under section 304-A. This section applies to rash and negligence acts and does not apply to cases where death has been voluntarily caused. This makes it clear that there can be no circumstances when one’s act can be read into this particular section in order to avail him the benefit of not being charged under section 299 to 302 of the I.P.C.Thus it’s clear that the facts which must be proven in order to invoke the applicability of this section are essentially three folds: (1) Death of a human being; (2) The accused caused the death; (3) The death was caused by the doing of a rash and negligent act, though it did not amount to culpable homicide. The ‘rash or negligent act’ referred to in this section means the act which is the immediate cause of death, and not any act or omission, which can utmost be said to be a remote cause of death. If an act is intended to hurt and injure a specific person or object, the perpetrator of the act must be imputed with an intentional act done with consideration and cannot amount to a ‘rash’ and ‘negligent’ act. It is imperative to note that there is difference between rashness and negligence. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. Negligence is a breach of duty caused by omission to do something, which a reasonable guided, by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do.At this point it is necessary to have a close perusal of the words of this section which it reads as “rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide”. The very words of this section indicate that the intent of the legislature was to apply this provision to the acts where a homicide was not culpable, i.e. where there was no intention to kill. The requirement of section 304-A of I.P.C. is that; death of any person must have been caused by the accused doing any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that the rash and negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of death. There must be a direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash or negligent act of the accused, a remote nexus is not enough. To impose criminal liability u/s 304-A of IPC it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of the rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another’s negligence, and it must be a causa causans, and not causa sine quo non. The footpaths in all areas of the city need to be given priority. Engineers will be asked to begin up gradation work on footpaths in arterial and sub-arterial roads. Around 2000kms of footpaths will be upgraded,” said The Mayor reportedly. The Mayor , reportedly admitted that footpaths are non-existent in areas like K R Market. It is our responsibility to provide better walking paths for pedestrians. Footpaths in all areas of the city will be given priority. There are many pedestrians killed in Bangalore. Between 30 to 40 per cent of the traffic deaths are of pedestrians. The world average of pedestrian related casualties is about 14 per cent. But in Bangalore, it is more than three times the world average. You cannot have a civilized society where you cannot walk safely. You need to build Bangalore for everyone. The major problem is that pedestrians are not united. You go to any city around the world. There are at least five to six different groups for cyclists, who may constitute only 1-2 per cent of the population. But you will not even see a single group for pedestrians. Despite everyone walking during some part of the day, theres no platform for walkers and citizens are forced to walk on road endangering the life. This is where the media plays a crucial role in raising-awareness. In Electronics City, Apartments in the area house more than 10,000 families. Several of them are located bang opposite reputed companies like Wipro and Infosys . Yet there are no footpaths leading to the apartments. Women are often seen walking with their babies in prams on busy roads. Every morning and evening, residents go through hell as they walk to work and back. There is no escape from shoddy footpaths in and around Bangalore . Be it slum houses or swanky apartments, the road is paved with inferior footpaths or no foot paths. This is the harsh and visible reality faced by those who have invested lakhs of rupees to buy their dream house in townships and apartment complexes in Bangalore. There is hardly any footpath on the way. In front of many police stations foot path is dumped with sized vehicles .On road to Malleshwaran police station foot path is in pathetic condition ,People end up walking on the busy road. Over the years, pedestrians have been killed while crossing roads. Yet there is no action either by BDA or BBMP.or Police. The conditions of footpaths in Bangalore are turning from bad to worse with the days progressing. The footpaths in Bangalore city are either filled with debris, garbage, illegal encroachment, huts, petty shops or construction materials. Opposite to Manjunataha Nagar Bus stop in Rajajinagar BBMP has encroached foot path by building fencing the foot path and people are forced to walk on the road .This is even much better when compared to several areas where the footpaths are not yet constructed and is left open causing threat to pedestrians in Bangalore city. One can see neat and well maintained footpaths only in the premises of apartments in Bangalore.Keeping apart the concerns of residential areas, even the city main roads and lifeline connections like Malleshwaram, Jayanagar, Domlur footpaths are all decorated with dumps. Where is namma Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)? The citizens fed up of lodging back to back complaints to BBMP have ignored no matter how worse the locality environment is taking curves to!. Bangalore people need to debate this issue and find solution.No one should die walking on road as foot paths does not exists as every life valuable.
Posted on: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 06:20:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015