Installation of residential security gates must comply with municipal regulations and account for collective security interests of all property residents.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners, who are resident of Kapashera Estate i.e., Petitioner No.1 is resident of Farm House No.1, Kapashera Estate, New Delhi and Petitioner No.2 is resident of Farm House No.1A, Kapashera Estate, New Delhi. By way of the present petition, both the Petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 16th July, 2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ("SDM"), Kapashera in respect of installation of gates in the Estate. The operation portion of the SDM's order is set out herein below:

"Observation:

After hearing both the parties and all the above facts as well as keeping in mind the safety and security of all residents living in the Kapashera Estate, the undersigned is of view that the request of RWA Association Kapashera is liable to be allowed and hereby allowed that the gate should be installed at point `A' and `B' instead of point `C' as shown in the map enclosed herewith because gates are being erected at the ends of roads & I am of the view that there is no partiality."

3. In order to get a better understanding of the dispute in this matter, the map of Kapashera Estate, which has been annexed with the counter affidavit, is set out herein below:

4. There are a total of 53 farm houses in the Kapashera Estate. The Respondent no.2 is the local Kapashera Estate Resident's Welfare Society (`RWA'). Only a few occupants of farmhouses are members of the RWA. The Petitioner's husband was stated to have historically been a member of the Society. However, the admitted position currently, is that the Petitioner no.1 has not paid the dues of the RWA for several years.

5. The objection by the Petitioners in the present case in respect of the impugned order is that the same is contrary to the MCD circular dated 25th July, 2007. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the installation of gates at points `A' and `B' has, in fact, exposed the Petitioners to higher risk as there is no gate enclosing their farm houses. However, as per the MCD circular, the gates are to be installed at the main access to the colony/block/pocket. Gates inside the block lanes/bye-lanes/service lanes would be allowed only if the local police recommends the same. Thus, according to the Petitioner, the permission by the SDM to install gates merely enclosing the 15 farmhouses coloured in green is impermissible. It is submitted by him that the application of Kapashera Estate's Residents' Welfare Association (hereinafter referred "RWA") was also totally misleading and has been wrongly interpreted by the SDM.

6. Mr. Siddarth Bhatnagar, ld. Counsel appearing for the RWA submits that the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the present case as they are not fulfilling the membership conditions of the RWA. The Petitioner being the resident of Farm House No.1 has not paid dues of the Association since several years. He further submits that the SDM order is quite reasoned and all parties agreed to the order of the SDM except the Petitioners, who are the living in Farm House No.1 and Farm House No.-1A. There was complete consensus between the residents of Farm Houses No.2 to 11. In any event, Mr. Bhatnagar submits that the RWA has no difficulty in also installing the gate at point `C' provided all the residents contribute equally. Insofar as the installation of gate at point `C' is concerned, the same was under consideration before the SDM.

7. Insofar as the SDM is concerned, the SDM has defended his own order, however, stated that any amendment in the installation of gates could also be considered.

8. The Court has perused the maps