Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd October, 2019
ANIL BHARGAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pooja Kumari and Ms. Pooja Verma, Advs.
Through: Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. for DDA Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Mukesh Pandey, Adv. for respondent no. 2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR O R D E R 23.10.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred with the following prayers:- “i. Immediately repair and carry out maintenance to preserve this Historical Monument i.e. SHEESH MAHAL situated at Shalimar Bagh; ii. Modify the order dated 14.07.2016 stopping the tenders passed by the respondent no. 1 to restart the auction of Orchards on annual basis for collecting the fruits from the trees with the entry of citizen in to the Orchards; 2019:DHC:5522-DB iii. To make provisions for adequate security of the citizen in the park/garden/orchards to restrain rampant gambling and betting; iv. To make adequate arrangements of maintenance of Parks, Garden and Orchards; v. To make adequate provisions to immediately stop illegal parking of vehicles in the Orchards; vi. To immediate stop the encroachers encroaching the area of Orchards; vii. To immediate restrain Illegal uprooting, cutting of tree(s) and setting ablaze trees; viii. Pass any other order/orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances stated above in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the additional affidavit filed by respondent no. 1 dated 12th July, 2019, especially paragraph 3 thereof, which reads as under:-
3. In view of the aforesaid action initiated by the respondent no. 1, it appears that the tender for deploying Security Guard for watch and ward of the monuments in question has been floated by the respondent no. 1. The tender has already been finalized and 72 Security Guards have been deployed at the monument, who are working in three shifts. Moreover, as stated in paragraph 4 of the aforesaid additional affidavit, it also appears that a decision has already been taken by the respondent no. 1 to raise boundary walls for protection of the monument in question. Thus, respondent no. 1 has already taken necessary action for deployment of security in the monument in question for its protection.
4. Moreover, looking to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 dated 7th December, 2018, it appears that there was an expenditure of ₹4,82,358/- in the year 2016-17 for repairing of the Sheesh Mahal monument. Similarly, expenditure has also been incurred by respondent no. 2 to the tune of ₹7,31,917/- in the year 2017-18 for repairing of the monument in question.
5. Thus, for the Sheesh Mahal, New Delhi, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have already taken adequate actions as stated hereinabove. Nonetheless, we hereby direct the respondents to continue to protect the monument referred to in the memo of this writ petition in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policy applicable to the facts of the case. Necessary budget will also be allocated for the preservation and conservation of the monument Sheesh Mahal. Hence, we see no reason to further monitor this matter in view of the actions already initiated by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, as enumerated in their counter-affidavit.
6. With these observations, this writ petition is hereby disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, J OCTOBER 23, 2019 r.bararia