Ramesh Jadwani & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 31 Aug 2023 · 2023:DHC:6489

Subramonium Prasad

W.P.(C) 1330/2023

2023:DHC:6489

administrative petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging road barricades in Sewa Nagar redevelopment area, holding that administrative restrictions for safety and project progress are lawful and not subject to interference absent manifest arbitrariness.

Full Text

W.P.(C) 1330/2023
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 31st AUGUST, 2023 IN THE MATTER OF:

W.P.(C) 1330/2023 & CM APPL. 4979/2023
RAMESH JADWANI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sunil Choudhary, Mr, Lalit Kumar, Mr. Praveen Singh, Advocates

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPC with Mr. Rudra Paliwal, GP, Ms. Ramneet Kaur, Ms. Indu Priyadarshani, EE, CPWD, Mr. Baid Singh, AE, CPWD and Mr. Sanad Dobwal for R-1, 2 and
4.
Ms. Mehak Nakra, ASC for GNCTD with Mr. Abhishek Khari, Advs for
R-3 and R-5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

JUDGMENT

1. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to remove the blockages and barricades from all the roads to and from the Sewa Nagar Market area and for opening of the public roads. The Petitioners have also prayed for issuance of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to provide an appropriate alternate access route to the Sewa Nagar Market and Sewa Nagar Colony.

2. Petitioner No.1 herein is a resident of Sewa Nagar Market. He also runs a shop in Sarojini Nagar Market. It is stated that there is more than 100 residential units in the Sewa Nagar where more than 350 people reside. It is stated that there are about 31 shops in the area which is the source of livelihood for around 100 families.

3. It is stated that the present writ petition is being filed in a representative capacity on behalf of residents and shopkeepers of Sewa Nagar and Sewa Nagar market.

4. It is the contention of the Petitioners that public roads have been closed/cordoned off/barricaded at the instance of Respondent No.2/Central Public Works Department and Respondent No.4/Land and Development Office.

5. It is stated that Sewa Nagar Market is well connected with roads and lanes providing access to various areas surrounding Sewa Nagar. It is stated that all the public roads barring one very narrow lane has been left open for use and access of the area of Kotla Mubarakpur and Sewa Nagar.It is stated that the road is so narrow that very often there are traffic jams. It is stated that the residents of the area are facing a lot of harassment due to these blockages. It is stated that during emergency, it is very difficult for ambulances and fire engines to reach the area. It is stated that children of the residents are forced to wake up earlier than usual so as to avoid getting late in reaching their respective schools. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the Respondents to clear the blockages.

6. Notice was issued in the writ petition on 02.02.2023. Counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent No.2/CPWD.

7. Counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 discloses that Respondent No.4/Land and Development Office is the land owning agency in Sewa Nagar. It is stated that there exited General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) colony for the Central Government employees in the said area. Since the construction of these government accommodations were 50 years old, these buildings were in a dilapidated condition. It is stated that Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 had taken a decision for demolition of the old buildings and for redevelopment of the area as per the Delhi Master Plan-2021 for building modern environmental friendly houses with optimum utilization of land. It is stated that the land was handed over to the CPWD much later and the roads in the area have been blocked to ensure smooth construction/redevelopment in the area after taking necessary permissions from Delhi Traffic Police. It is stated that in the counter affidavit that Sewa Nagar market is under redevelopment project. It is stated that the project being developed in the area forms a part of larger scheme launched by the Government of India and is being monitored by the office of the Prime Minister under the PARGATI PORTAL wherein government accommodations at various places in Delhi which were constructed 50 years back are being demolished and the areas are being redeveloped. It is further stated that the layout plan has been approved by the statutory bodies and the barricades have been erected as per the NGT guidelines and roads have been blocked after necessary permissions from the Delhi Traffic Police.

8. It is further stated that the market is well-connected with roads providing access to the surrounding areas. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Shri Krishna Sharma Marg which connects the market area to the Kotla Mubarakpur and the Defence Colony flyover is open and it is not as if the entire area has been cordoned off. It is further stated that Ratan Lal Sahdev Marg and J Shankar Marg which had been handed over for construction to the Construction Wing of CPWD by L&DO are not public roads as the same falls within the construction area wherein basements are being constructed at the depth of 10 meters.

9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

10. This Court on 02.02.2023 had observed as under:-

"8. It is noticed that the project in the Sewa Nagar area which is under construction is under the overall supervision of CPWD. Considering the nature of the matter, it is directed that in order to resolve some of the everyday issues which the market traders and residents may be facing, without disturbing the project and the progress of the same, let a meeting be held between the three representatives of the Petitioners and Mr. Manohar Lal - Chief Engineer CPWD, along with officials from L&DO and Mr. Danish Ashraf - Deputy Commissioner, MCD who is in charge of the area. 9. Let the meeting be held in the office of CPWD at the construction site in Sewa Nagar. The same shall be held on 6th February, 2023 at 11:30 a.m."

11. Material on record discloses that pursuant to the Order dated 02.02.2023, a meeting was held wherein three representatives of the Petitioners, i.e., Manoj Sikka, Ramesh Jadwani (Petitioner No.1 herein) and Raj Kumar Sharma attended the meeting. The Minutes of the Meeting read as under:-

"1. The representatives of the petitioners requested to open the closed roads of Phase-I area and remove the barricading from the road. In response of that CPWD officials apprised that the same can't be done as it is a construction area, and the excavation up to approx. 10 m depth is in progress. Any opening of roads may lead

to hazardous accident, and it is also risk to the road users, site construction staff & labour as well.

2. The representatives of petitions requested to open the barricaded area citing the situation of an emergency, to which officials proposed that Shri Krishna Verma Marg is already open and sufficient for any vehicular movement and should be used for emergency services also.

17,143 characters total

3. The representatives of petitioners cited about congestion on the Shri Krishna Verma Marg. In this regard, L&DO official asked MCD to clear any road blockage & remove congestion of this Marg for smooth flow of traffic.

4. The representatives of petitioners insisted that roads in GPRA colony are public roads. But L&DO official informed that, these are not public roads, and the entire plot has been handed over to CPWD for redevelopment of GPRA colony. The responsibility of safe custody of Central Govt. lands rests with CPWD.

5. It was further explained by CPWD, that concerned road cannot be opened for commuters as demanded by representatives to avoid accidents due to ongoing deep excavation works at that road and that will also disturb the project and progress of the project will also get severely hampered. In order, to resolve issues of Market, allotees were allowed to use Phase-II area on temporary basis for emergency services only. The entry to Phase-II area stickers on the vehicles. The gate passes shall be given to the Sewa Nagar market owners whose credentials authenticated by L&DO. After meeting, the site inspection was also carried with all the reps of Petitioners & UOI, for checking the suitability of passage for emergency use. The representatives of petitioners also agreed to this proposal.

6. After site inspection in Phase-II area it was decided that CPWD shall control the movement of Sewa Nagar Market vehicles owned by shopkeepers & residents of market only through the gates which shall be installed on the passage. This temporary emergency exit passages shall not be free fall all, instead it shall be allowed to Sewa Nagar Market shops allottees & residents only. It was also agreed by the reps of Petitioners also."

12. Material on record discloses that in the meeting it was stated that Shri Krishna Marg is already open and is sufficient for any vehicular movement and should be used for emergency services also. The minutes of meeting also discloses that representatives of CPWD explained that roads inside the colony cannot be opened for the commuters as demanded by the representatives of the Petitioners so as to avoid accident due to ongoing deep excavation works and that will also disturb the progress of the project.

13. The minutes of meeting discloses that the representative of the market was explained that in order to resolve the issue, market allottees were allowed to use Phase-II area on temporary basis for emergency services and persons in the locality would be permitted on showing their identity cards on these roads so as to avoid that normal commuters do not use these roads as thoroughfare. The minutes of meeting discloses that it has been decided to ensure that the residents of the area would be given gate passes so that their movement is not restricted and can be used for emergency purposes. The minutes of meeting also discloses that Respondent No.2 will control the movement at the Sewa Nagar market and vehicles owned by the shopkeepers and residents of the area would be allowed through the gates which are installed and passages shall not be freely accessible by everybody. The minutes of meeting records that the representatives of the Petitioner had agreed to the suggestion.

14. While exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Courts do not go into excruciating details on facts. Material on record discloses that there existed a General Pool Residential Accommodation for Central Government employees in Sewa Nagar. These accommodations were constructed 50 years back and a decision has been taken to demolish these buildings and for redeveloping the area as per the norms of Delhi Master Plan-2021. It has been planned to construct modern environment friendly house with optimum utilization of the land and CPWD has been entrusted with the work of redevelopment of General Residential Pool Accommodation colony at Sewa Nagar (which is also known as Kasturba Nagar).

15. The project started in September, 2019 and is yet to be completed because of delays in handing over the site. It has been stated by the Respondents that permission from the traffic authorities has been obtained. The counter affidavit states that the access to the Sewa Nagar and the market has not been completely blocked. It is stated that there are sufficient roads providing access to the surrounding areas and the access to the market has not been closed.

16. Material on record discloses that the project is being undertaken as a part of the redevelopment of the city wherein government quarters in various area are being demolished and would be reconstructed in accordance with the Master Plan Delhi-2021.

17. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that in place of double story Type-I quarters which have been demolished, high rise buildings are being constructed for serving Central Government employees. The redeveloped General Pool Residential Accommodation will now have approximately 3,500 flats for serving government employees and due to non-availability of land, if roads are not closed and they are permitted to be used freely for commuters, the progress will be hindered.

18. The scope of judicial review in administrative action has been well explained by the Apex Court in a number of judgments. The Apex Court in Municipal Council, Neemuch v. Mahadeo Real Estate & Ors., 2019 (10) SCC 738, has observed as under:-

"14. It could thus be seen that the scope of judicial review of an administrative action is very limited. Unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the decision-maker has not understood the law correctly that regulates his decision-making power or when it is found that the decision of the decision-maker is vitiated by irrationality and that too on the principle of “Wednesbury unreasonableness” or unless it is found that there has been a procedural impropriety in the decision-making process, it would not be permissible for the High Court to interfere in the decision-making process. It is also equally well settled that it is not permissible for the Court to examine the validity of the decision but this Court can examine only the correctness of the decision-making process. 15. This Court recently in W.B. Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim [W.B. Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 902] had again an occasion to consider the scope of interference under Article 226 in an administrative action: “31. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to

determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137]. If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ court by issuance of writ of certiorari.

32. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse.

33. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect.

16. It could thus be seen that an interference by the High Court would be warranted only when the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law i.e. when the error is apparent on the face of the record and is self-evident. The High Court would be empowered to exercise the powers when it finds that the decision impugned is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person would have ever arrived at. It has been reiterated that the test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken. Not only this but such a decision must have led to manifest injustice. "

19. A perusal of the above shows that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India judicial review in governmental decisions, the Courts must only see whether the decision taken is vitiated by an apparent error of law which is self evident on the face of the record. Even if there are two opinions possible, Courts must desist from interfering with the administrative decisions taken by the government and Courts do not interfere with such decisions unless the decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could arrive at such decision. Court do not substitute its own conclusions to the decisions arrived at by the administrative authorities. It is well settled that Court do not run governments and the government must be permitted to function smoothly.

20. The facts of the present case reveal that the residents of the area are being put to some difficulty and their movement is being restricted but this Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the entire area is being redeveloped and excavations are going on for the purpose of construction. Opening of roads to the general public will lead to delay in the progress of the project and from movement of people/vehicle it can also lead to accidents on account of excavation which has taken place in the area.

21. This Court, is, therefore, not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

22. It is expected that the project will be completed as expeditiously as possible so as to avoid the difficulties being faced by the residents of the area.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J AUGUST 31, 2023

Ramesh Jadwani & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation