A-41 % 23.09.2011 Present: Ms. S.R. Padhy, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Najmi Waziri, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2. +CONT. CAS (C) No 717/2011 * The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents; her contention is that the order dated 11.10.1996 passed in W.P.(C) No.3874!1996 has been violated. The contention is that in terms of the order of the Division Bench, there was only one way traffic movement proposed in the site plan (Annexure R-3) and the exit was from the other side; barricading has now been effected on this one way traffic movement road which amounts to violation of directions contained in the order dated 11.10.1996. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 Mr. Najmi Waziri has appeared and copy of the site plan has been placed on record. It is pointed out that there has been no violation; only as a temporary arrangement on 18.08.2011 with the consent of the parties, a temporary barricading has been permitted up to the period of Navratras and this will again be a one way traffic movement going from Kalkaji Mandir; almost 70% of the barricaded passage will be kept for the ongoing traffic towards the Mandir and the balance 30% portion will lie vacant only to be used in an emergency i.e. presuming a situation of a stampede or any other like contingency; this 30% portion shall be used for that purpose only. Keeping in Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified • view this contingency, this temporary barricading had been permitted which order had been passed for the Navratras and for the ongoing security of the Mandir. This is purely a temporary arrangement up to the period of Navratras; the traffic even otherwise is a one way traffic; the exodus will be from the exit side. No contempt is made out. Dismissed. Order dasti . SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 a INDERMEET KAUR, J.