The court emphasized the need to balance the rights of all stakeholders and upheld the respondent's right to cordon off the area for setting up the educational institution.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the Samaj Sudhar Samiti Harkesh Nagar (Regd.), through its General Secretary, Sh. Dhyan Singh to seek a writ order or direction in the nature of prohibition, to prohibit the respondents from closing, or in any manner interfering or restricting the access to the residents of Harkesh Nagar Colony from the main road i.e., the Ma Anand Mai Marg.

2. The case of the petitioner is that it is an association of residents of Harkesh Nagar Colony, which was an unauthorized colony regularized by the MCD vide Resolution No.631 dated 06.12.1990. The petitioner submits that its members and residents have been using a connecting road from its colony to the Maa Anand Mai Marg over the years, which falls on an open tract of land.

3. The respondents impleaded in the present writ petition are the Director (Works), GNCT of Delhi; the Chairman, IIT; the Director (Delhi Jal Board); the Commissioner (Industries), GNCT of Delhi; the President, Okhla Industrial Association (Regd.), and; the Commissioner of Police in that order.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land, whereon the said connecting road is located, has now been allotted to respondent no.2, IIIT to set up their campus, and respondent no.2 is seeking to cordon off the said road, and to prevent the members of the petitioner association from using the same. The petitioners case is that there are about two lacs residents in Harkesh Nagar Colony and the blockade of the connecting road would create chaos for the said residents as they would not be able to access Maa Anand Mai Marg, which is the main/trunk road used by the residents of Harkesh Nagar Colony for coming into or going out of the said colony.

5. The petitioners submit that they have no other alternate way to approach the colony, and if the said connecting road is cut off, the petitioners colony would become land locked. The action of the respondents, and in particular respondent no.2, is claimed to be in breach of the master plan and also in breach of the fundamental rights of the residents of Harkesh Nagar Colony. The petitioners have placed on record photographs to show the said connecting road being used by them, a part of which lies along boundary of G.B. Pant Polytechnic.

6. The petition is opposed by all the respondent authorities, namely, respondent nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. However, respondent no.5, Okhla Industrial Estate Association (Regd.) supports the petitioners case on the ground that the alternate route sought to be provided to the residents of Harkesh Nagar Colony adversely affects their interest.

7. Mr. Mukund, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because respondent no.2 claims to have been allotted the land, over which the said connecting road is located, is no ground to cut off the said road. He submits that when the allotment of the land in question was made to respondent no.2, they were well aware of the fact that a connecting road exists thereon from Harkesh Nagar Colony to Maa Anand Mai Marg, which is in regular use by the residents of Harkesh Nagar Colony for accessing Maa Anand Mai Marg. Therefore, the allotment was accepted by respondent No.2 with the above limitations. They cannot seek to alter the position now to the disadvantage of the residents of Harkesh Nagar Colony.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are any number of other instances, such as the Delhi University and Jamia Millia University, where the campus of the university is spread out, and there exist public roads/streets, open to the public for the purpose of commutation. He submits that there is no need for the respondent no.2 to cordon of its entire campus in such a manner as to block the connecting road, which the residents of Harkesh Nagar Colony have been using for five decades.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown to the Court the plan of the ar