The amicus curiae appointed in the public interest litigation relating to the launch of eco-cabs objected to the undertaking. A division bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ajay Tewari questioned as to how a person living on the second-floor of a house can give an undertaking to have adequate parking space prior to purchase of a vehicle.

APS Shergill, the amicus curiae, attacked UT's idea by stating that affidavit is the “most abusive form of undertaking”. Shergill also added that there is no legal reprimand for filing a false affidavit.

Expressing its disapproval over non-implementation of policies to curb traffic menace, Justice Surya Kant said that Chandigarh Administration's problem “is that it announces but does not implement”.

Appearing on behalf of Chandigarh Administration, its senior standing counsel, Sanjay Kaushal said that the Administration “is not insensitive” towards the rising menace of traffic jams. He said that the Administration is taking effective steps to reduce traffic jams which are becoming “unmanageable”.

Reeta Kohli, also an amicus curiae in the public interest litigation, suggested that the Chandigarh Administration should ensure that optimum utilisation of parking space is done.

Making a significant suggestion, Kohli said the parking areas in market can be converted for parking of vehicles in congested areas. She also said that the possibility of charging for parking a vehicle in the parking area can also be explored by the Chandigarh Administration.

Kohli further suggested that the purchase of vehicles should be allowed depending on the number of adults in a family.

Senior standing counsel Sanjay Kaushal added that the process to launch eco cabs is on and that the Administration will shortly hold a meeting in this regard.

The division bench also asked over the haphazard parking of vehicles on High Court premises. In response to this, Kaushal said that the bus service started for lawyers received a very poor response as only two lawyers were availing the service.