Mamta Rani v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a writ of mandamus, order or direction to be issued to the Respondents to remove the blockades which have been put on the crossings of Mathura Road preventing a right turn while coming from the additional building of the Supreme Court of India either to the main building of the Supreme Court of India or to the High Court of Delhi. The prayers made by the Petitioner, by way of the instant PIL, reads as under: "(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the respondents to remove the blockades which have been put on Mathura Road intersections preventing right turn while coming from additional building of the Supreme Court of India to either the main building of the Supreme Court of India or to the Delhi High Court. (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or directions to the respondents identify make appropriate arrangements and changes on the roads throughout NCT of Delhi so that no common motorist who passes through the places like Roundabout near Krishi Bhawan and Rail Bhawan does not violate traffic rules due to confusions which arises there if a motorists approach the roundabout from the side of Janpath through Raisina Road.

(c) Issue any other appropriate Writ, order/orders and/or direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. It is stated by the Petitioner, who is by profession a practising Advocate, that Advocates, who commute by car from the Supreme Court of India to the High Court of Delhi, have to appear in both the Supreme Court of India and in the High Court on the same day. It is submitted by the Petitioner that due to barricades at all the crossings on Mathura Road, the distance of about 300 meters to 400 meters while travelling from the additional building of Supreme Court to the main building of the High Court has become more than 5 kilometers which is not only time consuming but also a wastage of fuel.

3. It is stated that the decision of the Delhi Traffic Police to restrict the movement of vehicles by putting barricades at the crossing/traffic signal on Mathura Road for an indefinite period of time is arbitrary and unjust and in fact causes hurdles in the administration of justice. It is stated that this decision has not been intimated to the Apex Court or to this Court. It is stated that the Bar Associations of the Apex Court as well as of the High Court have not been taken into confidence before taking this decision.

4. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Parties and perused the material on record.

5. This Court can take a judicial notice of the fact of the substantial increase in road traffic in the city in the last few years. This Court can also take judicial notice of the fact of a number of cars that are parked on the roads in front of the High Court and in the lanes alongside this Court, which causes a traffic hindrance. Traffic control is the sole domain of the Traffic Police. It is well settled that Courts do not run the country and it is up to the administration to take decisions for smooth functioning of the Government. The Apex Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664 has held that Courts should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or functions. Paragraph Nos.232 and 233 of the said Judgment reads as under:

there is a valid law requiring the Government to act in a particular manner the court ought not to, without striking down the law, give any direction which is not in accordance with law. In other words the court itself is not above the law.

234. In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government the courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in public interest to require the court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation the court should refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government, is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision." (emphasis supplied)

6. Similarly, the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714 has held as under:

the power is statutory, quasi-judicial or administrative. The power of judicial review is not intended to assume a supervisory role or don the robes of the omnipresent. The power is not intended either to review governance under the rule of law nor do the courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the suprema lex to the other organs of the State. Decisions and actions which do not have adjudicative disposition may not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review court. The limited scope of judicial review, succinctly put, is:

(i) Courts, while exercising the power of judicial review, do not sit in appeal over the decisions of administrative bodies.

(ii) A petition for a judicial review would lie only on certain well-defined grounds.

(iii) An order passed by an administrative authority exercising discretion vested in it, cannot be interfered in judicial review unless it is shown that exercise of discretion itself is perverse or illegal.