Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
D.D.A.
Versus
Rajendra Singh & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4866-67 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2905529056 of 2008) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4868,4869,4870-71,4872-73,4874, 4875-76/ 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.30075, 30112, 31123-31124/2008, 4408- 4409, 6256, 6029-6030 of 2009)
Decided On : 30-07-2009
(b) Administration of Justice – Binding precedent – Present CGV site and the site allotted for Akshardham temple – Both adjacent to each other and forming part of the same area – After duly considering all reports and other materials Supreme Court rejecting similar objections and dismissing the writ petitions – High Court erroneously holding that decision not binding in the present case. (Para 25)
(c) Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 32 – PIL – Delay and laches – Writ application filed after undue delay without reasonable explanation are liable to be dismissed – PIL challenging a project after commencement of its execution should be thrown out at the threshold – Instantly, user of the site in question changed from "agricultural and water body" to "public and semi-public" after inviting, receiving and considering public objections way back in 1999 – Decision of hosting Commonwealth Games at Commonwealth Games Village site taken in 2003 – Tenders floated in December 2006 and completed in June 2007 – Environmental Clearance granted on 14.12.2006 – PIL filed in mid-2007 – PIL ought to be dismissed. (Para 26)
(2000) 10 SCC 664 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
On a PIL by the Respondents the High Court of Delhi issued certain directions for setting up of a Committee to enquire as to whether the Commonwealth Games Village (CGV) site complex is situated on the Yamuna "riverbed" or "floodplain" and further observed that any construction made or third party rights created are at the peril and risk of the Organisers/Government.
This order is under challenge in these appeals.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result:
Civil Appeal Nos.4866-4867, 4868, 4872-73, 4875-4876 & 4870-4871 of 2009 are allowed and Civil Appeal Nos. 4869 & 4874 of 2009 are dismissed.
Judgment :
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) All these special leave petitions are directed against the common judgment and order dated 03.11.2008 of the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) Nos. 6729 & 7506 of 2007 which, inter alia, issued certain directions for setting up of a Committee to enquire as to whether the Commonwealth Games Village (CGV) site complex is situated on the Yamuna "riverbed" or "floodplain" and further observed that any construction made or third party rights created are at the peril and risk of the Organisers/Government. Aggrieved by the said judgment, Delhi Development Authority (in short "DDA") has filed S.L.P.(C) Nos. 29055-29056 of 2008, Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation has filed S.L.P.(C) No. 30075 of 2008 and Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has filed S.L.P.(C) Nos. 4408-4409 of 2009 as well as S.L.P.(C) Nos. 6029-6030 of 2009 and Organizing Committee, Commonwealth Games has filed S.L.P.(C) Nos. 31123-31124 of 2008. Vinod Kumar Jain, petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6729 of 2007 before the High Court of Delhi, has filed S.L.P.(C) No.30112 of 2008 and Rajendra Singh & Ors petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 7506 of 2007 before the High Court have filed S.L.P.(C) No. 6256 of 2009 praying for stopping all construction activities on the riverbed of Yamuna other than CGV site and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. Since all the special leave petitions arise from the common judgment, all are being disposed of by the following judgment.
2) Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
3) Brief Facts:
Vinod Kumar Jain and Rajendra Singh and Others claiming as environmentalists approached the High Court of Delhi by filing W.P.(C) Nos. 6729 and 7506 of 2007 for the following reliefs:
"(a) Directing the respondents to remove any construction, fill up, digging etc. made so far and restore the ecology of Yamuna river bed.
(b) Declaring the Yamuna riverbed in Delhi as an ecologically sensitive area and hence to be protected and preserved.
(c) Directing that any construction in the Yamuna river bed will permanently destroy the ecology of river Yamuna, its ground water recharge ability and will be violative of public trust doctrine, precautionary principle which are part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
(d) Directing that the respondents should locate an alternative site for the project(s) as pointed out in the EAC recommendations dated 03.11.2006.
(e) Setting aside of EC dated 14.12.2006 as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
(f) Setting aside of EC dated 22.01.07; 29.03.07; and 02.04.07 as being arbitrary, whimsical, mala fide and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
(g) Directing the respondents to restore the ecology of river Yamuna in accordance with the "Polluters pay Principle".
(h) Pass any such other order as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4) On 13.09.2003, Commonwealth Games Federation selected Delhi as the venue for Commonwealth Games scheduled to be held from 3rd to 14th October, 2010. After due deliberations, XIX Commonwealth Games 2010 are being hosted in Delhi pursuant to a commitment made by the Indian Olympic Association in the form of an agreement in which it agreed to host the games in India with the approved standards and requirements of the Commonwealth Games Federation. Complaining that the Governmental agencies and the DDA are effecting various steps including massive construction on the periphery of Yamuna river, apprehending that the action being taken would not only destroy the river Yamuna but also pose severe threat to the Delhi city as well and in order to stop the entire proceedings, the said petitioners moved the High Court of Delhi. The main claim of the petitioners before the High Court was to the effect that the ongoing construction would affect the ecological integrity of the "riverbed" besides causing irreversible damage to the "floodplain".
5) Refuting the apprehensions and the allegations of the publ
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
