Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Thursday, October 31, 2024

Central Vista Project Of National Importance: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea To Suspend Work Amid COVID; Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Petitioners

Posted in: Civil Laws
Mon, Jun 7, 21, 13:07, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 4 - hits: 4960
Anya Malhotra & Anr. v/s UOI.the government had already stated that the workers were staying on site and all arrangements had been made to ensure Covid-19 appropriate behaviour on site.

It is really most heartening to note that in a significant development with far reaching consequences, the Delhi High Court has in a latest, learned, laudable and landmark judgment titled Anya Malhotra & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. in W.P.(C) 5150/2021 & C.M.APPLs. 15790/2021 & 16261/2021 that was reserved on 17 May and then finally pronounced on 31 May, 2021, a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh of Delhi High Court dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- a public interest litigation that was seeking the temporary suspension of construction work on Central Vista Redevelopment Project, in light of COVID. The Delhi High Court said that the government had already stated that the workers were staying on site and all arrangements had been made to ensure Covid-19 appropriate behaviour on site. So there was no valid reason to stop the construction work!

Needless to state, those who are very strong critics of this Central Vista project cannot take it for granted that the Delhi High Court minced just no words to put across what is quite manifest also that, This work is part and parcel of Central Vista Project and of vital public importance. The construction of Central Vista Avenue Redevelopment Project cannot be seen in isolation. In fact, the whole Central Vista Project is an essential project of national importance, where the sovereign functions of Parliament are also to be conducted. Public is vitally interested in this project.

It cannot be lightly dismissed that while calling the petition motivated, the Delhi High Court imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioners - Anya Malhotra who is a translator and Sohail Hashmi who is a historian who sought to halt the ongoing part redevelopment of the Central Vista Avenue, which includes both sides of Rajpath, on the grounds that the work could become a super spreader event. The petitioners were represented by a battery of lawyers led by eminent and senior advocate Siddharth Luthra who argued forcefully the petitioners case but the Delhi High Court remained unconvinced and ruled against the petitioners! The petitioners still have the option of going for appeal but this is right now certainly a big setback for them! But they must remember always what even Delhi High Court in this case itself acknowledged that the legality of the project has been upheld previoúsly by the Apex Court itself.

To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 2 of this notable judgment authored by Chief Justice DN Patel for himself and Ms Justice Jyoti Singh wherein it is put forth that, At the outset, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not pressing the reliefs claimed in prayer clause (iii) of the instant writ petition. Mr. Luthra submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to enforce the Orders issued by Delhi Disaster Management Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DDMA') and in the light of the said Orders directions are sought to Respondents No. 1 and 2 to forthwith halt/suspend all construction activities of the Central Vista Avenue Redevelopment Project awarded to Respondent no. 4 as also a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondent no. 3 to forthwith withdraw and rescind the movement pass dated 19th April, 2021 (Annexure P-7 to the memo of this petition), during the present peak phase of the Pandemic Covid-19.

As against this, it is then observed in para 12 that, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Learned Solicitor General of India addressed arguments on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2. He submitted that the scope of work for the project in question is not what is colloquially referred to as 'Central Visa Project', which includes the Parliament, refurbishment of North Block, South Block, construction of new offices for Central Government, i.e., common Central Secretariat, central conference facilities etc. The scope of the work which is the subject-matter of the present petition is limited to the redevelopment of Central Vista Avenue (i.e., both sides of Rajpath) where the Republic Day Celebrations are held on 26th January every year. It is a matter of common knowledge that it is a very important public place and most widely visited by common public and tourists. Scope of work, as per the Learned Solicitor General is as follows:

  1. Providing public amenities like toilet blocks, paths, parking space, vendor zone;
  2. Making four pedestrian underpasses below Janpath and C-Hexagon Road.
  3. Improvement of canals, bridges, lawns, lights etc.


Furthermore, senior advocate Maninder Singh who appeared for Construction Company Shapoorji Pallonji Group that had emerged as the lowest bidder for redevelopment project objected to the proposal for extension of deadline of the project. In this context, the Bench then while stating his version points out in para 19 that, We have also heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4/SPCPL. Mr. Singh at the outset questioned the bonafides of the petitioners and submitted that there is no public interest involved in the matter and the petition is motivated with the sole purpose of stalling the project. It was submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the work of the Project in question was awarded to Respondent No. 4 after a tender process in January, 2021 and as per the terms of the contract, it is to be completed within 10 months, i.e. by November, 2021. Time is of the essence of the contract as the work includes redevelopment of Central Vista Avenue, where Republic Day Celebrations are held and slightest delay in meeting the time-lines can cause hindrance in celebration of a National Event. The work of the Project had started much before the imposition of the curfew by DDMA and post the imposition of curfew, necessary permissions were sought by Respondent No.4 for a movement pass, which was granted on 19th April, 2021, keeping in view the exigency and urgency of the Project in question.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then after going through the version of all sides observes in para 23 that, We have heard Learned Senior Counsel for the parties and Learned Solicitor General of India and examined their respective contentions as well as the pleadings and documents on record. Petitioners have laid a challenge to the ongoing construction activity in connection with the work of 'Central Vista Avenue Redevelopment Project' and seek a direction from this Court to Respondents No. 1 and 2 to forthwith stop the construction activity and a direction to Respondents No. 3 to rescind the movement pass dated 19th April, 2021 in the wake of Pandemic Covid-19 which is in its peak phase.

Be it noted, the Bench then remarks in para 24 that, The case of the petitioners is primarily predicated on the directions issued by DDMA vide its Order dated 19th April, 2021 (Annexure P-6 to the memo of this petition), exercising power under Section 22 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, whereby restriction on movements and activities was imposed and all private offices/establishments, etc. were directed to remain close, except for those exempted/allowed by the said Order.

It would be worthwhile to mention that it is then made clear in para 32 that, Looking to the respective stands of the Respondents and the measures taken on ground as well as the provisions of the various DDMA Orders, we find that the petitioners have not been able to substantiate the allegations made in the writ petition and/or the alleged breach of violation of the DDMA orders. On the contrary, challenge to the on-going construction activity with regard to one particular Project, is a pointer to the ill-intent and lack of bonafides of the petitioners in filing the present petition.

For the sake of clarity, the Bench then enunciates in para 33 that, Central Vista Project includes the Parliament, refurbishment of North Block, South Block, construction of new offices for Central Government, i.e. Common Central Secretariat, Central Conference facilities etc which includes Central Vista Avenue Redevelopment Project (i.e., both sides of Rajpath where Republic Day celebrations are held every year, on 26th January. Thus, this project is a vital public project. The scope of the work for the aforesaid project is as under:

  1. Providing public amenities like toilet blocks, paths, parking space, vendor zone;
  2. Making four pedestrian underpasses below Janpath and C-Hexagon Road.
  3. Improvement of canals, bridges, lawns, lights etc.


Most notably, the Bench then underscores in para 34 that, We may also take note that several other agencies like CPWD, NBCC, DMRC, PWD, IICC and DDA are undertaking construction projects in the territory of National Capital Region of Delhi. It is obvious that petitioners have selectively chosen only one project which is of National importance, at a vital place where Republic Day Celebrations are held in Delhi and is a part and parcel of the larger project, namely, Central Vista Project, legality whereof has already been upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 5th, January 2021 passed in Transferred Case (Civil) No. 229/2020, reported as 2021 SCC Online SC 7 and which is to be completed within a time bound schedule, i.e. on or before November, 2021. This project cannot be stopped by the Court in view of the aforesaid facts, especially when the requirements of paragrah-8 of the order of the DDMA dated 19th April, 2021 issued under Section 22 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 have been complied with by the Respondents. Necessary steps have been taken by Respondent No. 4 to comply with Covid-19 related protocols and the construction activity does not fall foul of the rigours of the DDMA Orders and is rather in consonance thereof.

While. mentioning a valid point for repudiating the petitioners contention, the Bench then enunciates in para 35 that, As the conditions imposed by the DDMA vide their order dated 19th April, 2021 have been fulfilled by Respondent No. 4, the facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts of the judgments upon which reliance was placed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and hence, the said judgments do not help the petitioners. We also find that the permission granted for movement of the vehicles by issuing the movement pass dated 19th April, 2021 (Annexure P-7 to the memo of this petition) is absolutely just, legal and proper. The workers who are working at the site have been given the facility to reside onsite, however, there is a need to transport material for construction. The permission is certainly regulated and only those vehicles which have been permitted, would be allowed to move, in accordance with the movement pass dated 19th April, 2021 and after due scrutiny of their registration numbers.

Needless to say, it would be unwise to gloss over what is then stated in para 36 that, Much has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that the project in question is not an 'essential activity' and could be deferred. We do not agree with the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners on this aspect either. As highlighted by the Respondents, the Central Vista Avenue Redevelopment Project is part and parcel of the larger project, namely, Central Vista Project. The Central Vista Project includes Parliament, refurbishment of North Block, South Block, construction of new offices of Central Government, i.e. common Central Secretariat, Central Conference facilities etc. The scope and importance of redevelopment of Central Vista Avenue Project have been explained in paragraphs-3 and 4 of the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 4, which are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

3. In January 2021, the Work of the Redevelopment of Central Vista Avenue was awarded to SPCPL by Central Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as CPWD). The brief scope of work included the Redevelopment of Central Vista Avenue, Improvement of canals, bridges, lawns lights etc., providing public amenities like toilet blocks, parking, vendor zone, construction of four pedestrian underpasses below Janpath and C-Hexagon road.

4. The said work is to be completed within 10 months i.e., by November 2021. It is pertinent to mention that the work included Redevelopment of Central Vista Avenue where Republic Day Celebrations are held and therefore the timeline of the project is of strict importance as even slightest delay in the project can cause a great hindrance to the Celebrations of Republic day, 2022.

While highlighting the indispensable utility of the Central Vista Project, the Bench then minced no words in para 37 to hold that, The present petition has been filed to stop with immediate effect the work of the redevelopment of Central Vista Avenue. This work is part and parcel of Central Vista Project and of vital public importance. The construction of Central Vista Avenue Redevelopment Project cannot be seen in isolation. In fact, the whole Central Vista Project is an essential project of National importance, where the sovereign functions of Parliament are also to be conducted. Public is vitally interested in this project. The legality of the project has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 5th, January 2021 passed in Transferred Case (Civil) No. 229/2020, reported as 2021 SCC Online SC 7. The whole project has been given after notice inviting tender process. As stated in the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 4, they have to complete the work on or before November, 2021 which was assigned to them in January, 2021. Time is of the essence of the contract.

Going ahead, the Bench also waxed eloquent to state unequivocally in para 38 that, The work has to be completed within time-bound schedule. Petitioners have casually argued that the time limit be extended. Such kind of arguments cannot be accepted by this Court, keeping in view that they construction activity of this essential project or of a project of national importance cannot be stopped especially when the conditions imposed by the order of the DDMA dated 19th April, 2021as mentioned in paragraph-8 thereof are not flouted or violated. We completely disagree with the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the project is not an essential activity.

The Project in question is of vital importance and essential and has a direct nexus with the main project, namely, Central Vista Project. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Central Vista Project (which is the main project) or Central Vista Avenue Redevelopment Project is not an essential project. The Central Vista Avenue Redevelopment Project which is a sub-set of the main project is equally important and essential as the main project.

If this type of project is stopped by the Court, the main project cannot be completed within the stipulated time. Once the workers are staying at the site and all facilities have been provided by Respondent No. 4, Covid-19 protocols are adhered to and COVID-19 àppropriate behaviour is being followed, there is no reason for this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to stop the project.

Quite forthrightly, the Bench then held in para 39 that, We are of the view that this is a motivated petition preferred by the petitioners and not a genuine public interest litigation. In view of the aforesaid, present petition is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to be deposited by the petitioners with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today.

The aforesaid amount shall be utilized for the programme 'Access to Justice:
In essence, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh thus sets the record straight on Central Vista project which has huge national importance also. We thus see that the Centre's stand on this key issue stands vindicated! Even the Opposition parties have no option but to now respect this laudable, learned and latest judgment by Delhi High Court which has come as a shot in the arm for BJP.

It merits no reiteration that our Parliament is very old built century ago in 1920 in British era and it has as time progressed become weak and dilapidated in its durability naturally as it has been in existence since more than 100 years. More damningly, its location is vulnerable to earthquakes and the safety of MPs cannot be taken for granted! The new building is being built manifestly in such a manner that it can withstand a big earthquake most easily!Also, by 2025 the number of MPs in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha will increase rapidly for which a bigger hall is required and this necessitated the compelling move for creation of new Parliament! All such factors tilted the scales in favour of Centre and compelled Delhi High Court to not just dismiss petition but also impose a heavy cost also of Rs 1 lakh on all the petitioners as stated initially!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top