SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Del) 1678

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG and MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
PANCHSHILA COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS – Appellants
Versus
STATE (GOVT) OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS – Respondents
LPA 344/2015 & CM 10354/2015 (stay)
Decided On : 28.07.2015

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Gaurav Sarin, Mr.Satyam Thareja, Ms.Charul Sarin, Ms.Veera Angrish and Mr.Ajitesh, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr.Raman Duggal, Standing Counsel (GNCTD) with Ms.Aayushi Gupta, Advocate for R-1 to R-3. Mr.S.R.Sharma, Advocate for R-4. Mr.Aman Panwar and Mr.Mudit Gupta, Advocates for Intervener.

The court emphasized that in matters of policy and public projects, the courts should refrain from interfering with valid and considered policy decisions taken by governmental authorities, as long as they are not in conflict with the law or mala fide.

Headnote:

FOB - Location of Foot Over Bridge - Delhi Development Act, 1957 - [Section 57, Para-5(g)] - The court discussed the decision-making process regarding the location of a Foot Over Bridge (FOB) on the Outer Ring Road, Panchshila Park. The court considered the recommendations of the Unified Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure (Planning & Engineering) Centre (UTTIPEC) and the Governing Body's decision to place the FOB near Panchseel flyover, based on pedestrian footfall and traffic observations.

Fact of the Case:

The Appellants sought to challenge the decision regarding the location of a Foot Over Bridge (FOB) and requested its relocation based on safety and traffic concerns. The court directed UTTIPEC to examine the matter and make a decision. The Governing Body of UTTIPEC ultimately approved the location near Panchseel flyover, considering pedestrian footfall and traffic observations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the decision-making process regarding the FOB location was within the purview of UTTIPEC and the Governing Body, and the decision to place the FOB near Panchseel flyover was based on valid considerations of pedestrian footfall and traffic observations.

Issues: The main issue was the challenge to the decision regarding the FOB location and the request for its relocation based on safety and traffic concerns.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision-making process regarding the FOB location fell within the domain of UTTIPEC and the Governing Body, and the decision to place the FOB near Panchseel flyover was based on valid considerations of pedestrian footfall and traffic observations.

Final Decision: The appeal and application were dismissed, and the decision to place the FOB near Panchseel flyover was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. Panchshila Cooperative House Building Society and others, the Appellants herein filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1921/2014 seeking declaration that the decision pertaining to the present location and placement of the Foot Over Bridge (in short ‘FOB’) which is being constructed on the Outer Ring Road, Panchshila Park on one end in front of House Nos.S-25 to S-29, Panchsheel Park and on the other end in front of House Nos.N-96 and N-98, Panchsheel Park is arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal and sought quashing of the decision of PWD regarding the choice of location and placement of the same with further directions to the Respondents not to construct the FOB at the impugned location; to restore status quo ante and relocate and construct the FOB at alternate location as suggested by the Appellants. The said writ petition was withdrawn on March 24, 2014 by the learned counsel with liberty to make a representation to the Unified Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure (Planning & Engineering) Centre (UTTIPEC) within a period of two days who was in turn directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks. Vide order dated March 24, 2014, UTTIPEC was further directed to give a hearing to a team comprising three representatives of the Appellants before deciding the matter and liberty was granted to the Appellants to file appropriate proceedings if aggrieved by the decision of the UTTIPEC, leaving the rights and contentions of all the parties open.

2. Pursuant to the withdrawal of the writ petition a representation dated March 27, 2014 was made by the Appellants to the UTTIPEC. After holding a meeting with the Appellants along with the officers concerned on April 04, 2014, the Director (Planning), UTTIPEC sent recommendations to the Secretary, PWD, Government of NCT of Delhi in the following terms on April 25, 2014:

“From the hearing of all the Petitioners following views emerged:

(i) The current proposed location in the front of house no.S-25 to S-29, Panchshila Park on the one end and house no.N-96 & N-98, Panchsila Park on the other end, adopted by the PWD is not appropriate for construction of FOB due to the following reasons:

(a) There is no footpath on both sides of the road at the current location chosen by PWD; hence it is unsafe for pedestrians attempting to cross the road at this point.

(b) The service road is too narrow on both sides, approximately 27 feet. After locating the foot print of the FOB, as per the plan, it is found that right of way for traffic movement in the left over service lane is inadequate. Thus, the construction of FOB at current location would create traffic jam.

(c) The impugned location is too close to the Fly-over and red light under with pedestrian crossing. Hence this location would not be optimally utilised.

(ii) The location in the vicinity of the MAX Hospital (on the north side) and ING Vyasya Bank (on the south side) is more appropriate and is in concordance with UTTIPEC Guidelines for the following reasons as mentioned below:

(a) Service Road is much wider at the alternate location.

(b) At the alternate location, in addition to the service road, there is also a wide footpath, which can be used for ingress and egress from FOB. Thus, the total width available at alternate location is higher, as compared to the present location.

(c) A wide footpath is available on either side of the road at the alternate location.

(d) There are bus stops on either side of the road. It is more suitable from the perspective of people accessing the community shopping area, school, park, MAX Hospital and Banks that are situated on both sides of the Ring Road in close proximity to the proposed site.

(e) The new location is beneficial to great number of the users and residents on both sides of the road namely Panchshila North and South Blocks, Sadhana Enclave and Panchshila Enclave. It also is the mid-block location for the Panchshila Colony.

(f) F





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top