Court on Its Own Motion v. Delhi Cantonment Board

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. Vide the previous order dated 18th June, 2025, the Court had issued following directions:

smooth movement of soldiers across the Ring Road while also safeguarding public safety and soldiers’ safety as also minimising traffic congestion.

6. Accordingly, let the PWD and the DCB along with the DTP hold a joint meeting on 10th July, 2025 in the Conference Hall of the DCB to consider the following:-

(i) As an immediate solution, construction of a

Bailey Bridge for enabling the soldiers to cross over the Ring Road. For the said purpose, if the services of any other agency of the Army or otherwise are required, the DCB is free to avail of such services.

(ii) Let a plan be also finalised for the construction of the FOB and a design consultant be hired by the PWD for the said purpose and a report be submitted in respect of the design, the budget and the timeline for construction of the bridge.

7. Let a report in this regard be submitted by the next date of hearing. Mr. Alkesh Sharma who has been appointed as the Nodal Officer shall coordinate the said meeting. It is made clear that the cost of construction of these bridges shall be borne by the PWD, as the FOB, as is emerging from the record, was approved way back in 2010 and has not been constructed for whatever reason.”

3. A status report dated 25th July, 2025 has been filed by the Delhi Cantonment Board (hereinafter ‘DCB’) inter alia informing the Court that two meetings were held pursuant to the directions in the above order. One on 10th July, 2025 and another on 24th July, 2025. In the said meetings, all the relevant authorities such as DCB, Delhi Traffic Police, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (hereinafter ‘DMRC’), Delhi Jal Board (hereinafter ‘DJB’) and Public Works Department (hereinafter ‘PWD’) were present. In addition, the agencies who are providing utility services, namely, Tata Power Company Limited (hereinafter ‘Tata Power’), and Indraprastha Gas Limited (hereinafter ‘IGL’) were also present along with Representatives of Rajputana Rifles Regimental Centre.

4. Over the course of two meetings, it has been agreed that for the construction of the Foot Over Bridge (hereinafter ‘FOB’), a period of ten months would be required. In the interregnum, a Bailey Bridge will be constructed by the Army itself within a period of 40 days. Additionally, various other decisions have also been made which, for the ease of reference, are set out below: “a) The concerned agencies will complete the shifting of utilities/ services within a period of two weeks from today and thereafter the site shall be handed over to the Army for the construction of the Bailey Bridge. b) The Army shall construct the Bailey Bridge within 40 days after the receipt of the clear site for construction. c) All cost of construction of bailey bridge, shifting/relocation of services, maintenance and any ancillary work related thereto shall be borne by the PWD. d) The PWD will pay the first installment of Rs. 25 Lac to the Army for initiating the construction of the Bailey Bridge. e) The boundary wall/ drains vested with the PWD and coming in the alignment of the bridge shall be shifted by the PWD within 2 weeks. f) The PWD authorities will closely liaise with the Army Authorities and Traffic Police to facilitate all necessary help and assistance for seamless construction of the bridge. g) The progress shall be informed to the nodal officer of Delhi Cantonment Board on weekly basis.”

5. On a query from the Court, the Parties present have affirmed that the above timeline as contained in the Status Report is acceptable to all the parties who are appearing today.

6. In the minutes of meeting dated 24th July, 2025, the following was identified as the prior work that would have to be completed for construction of the bailey bridge:

7. As can be seen from the above, the cooperation of the various utility service providers, including BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., would be required for the shifting of some electricity cables, water and gas pipelines which lie across the proposed site of construction. Accordingly, Mr. Manish Srivastava, ld. Counsel who is appearing for Tata Power today, who regularly appears for BSES, is requested to accept notice on behalf of BSES. He, on behalf of Tata Power, submits that the exact location of the cables is not clear at this point, and therefore, a joint site inspection would be required.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Srivastava, ld. Counsel for Tata Power that a specific application would need to be filed with the said two electric companies by either the PWD or the DCB, upon which a demand note would be raised and upon receipt of payment, the work would be carried out.