Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of D.N. Patel, CJ and Prateek Jalan, J., while addressing a matter in regard to the frequent earthquakes/ seismic activity in Delhi, stated that,

“What is in the interest of public, is the execution of directions and not high-sounding words of notifications”

Bench noted that certain notifications and action plans have been initiated by respondents including Government of NCT of Delhi and other municipal Corporation/Council with regard to seismic activity in Delhi.

However, on enquiring about the same, whether the said notifications or action plans have yet been implemented in Delhi, no positive response came by the counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi or by municipal Corporations.

Thus, in view of the above Court stated that,

“…drafting of notifications and action plans has to be followed up with their timely implementation/execution.”

Further having regard to the respondents submission that Delhi is not at present in a state of readiness in terms of seismic structural stability of buildings, by the next date of hearing, Court expects for the information to be furnished regarding at least 25 buildings in respect of which implementation of action plan has commenced as pointed out by the Government of NCT of Delhi.

As a parting remark, Court stated that at this stage it is not criticising but if no execution of the directions takes place, then respondents must be ready to face the criticism of the Court and action against the officers concerned will be taken.

Matter has been adjourned to 8th July, 2020. [Arpit Bhargava v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 655 , decided on 18-06-2020]


Also Read:

Del HC | Imminent threat being faced by citizens of NCT of Delhi due to heightened seismic activity would not be resolved with mere paperwork; GNCTD to sensitize public at large

Legislation UpdatesNotifications

No. F. 6/21/2018-Judl./Suptlaw/608-615 — In pursuance of the provisions of Section 10 of Delhi Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2001, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi, is pleased to designate the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-02 in each District under Delhi Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2001.

[Notification dt. 25-03-2019]

Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Bench comprising of the Rajendra Menon CJ.  and V. Kameswar Rao, J. dismissed a petition pertaining to seeking a direction/mandamus to explain the rationale behind respondent’s decision to procure “non-disabled friendly public transport standard floor buses.

The PIL was filed with a grievance of the petitioner that procuring only public transport standard floor buses amounts to mandatorily ignoring the rights of persons with disability and as disabled friendly access to low floor buses is more feasible, the mandamus as prayed for be issued and respondents be restrained from purchasing standard floor buses. Primarily the prayer of the petitioner was that the act of the government in procuring standard floor buses in comparison to low floor buses is unsustainable.

Further, it was noted on perusal of the records concerning the present matter that on 1 June 2018 a bench of Delhi High Court had passed the restraining order against the respondent from procuring the standard floor buses. Challenging the stated interim order of the Delhi High Court, a special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court and the interim order was modified stating: “permitted procurement of 500 standard floor buses immediately pursuant to the tender issued and requested the parties to approach this Court for a decision with regard to the procurement of the remaining 500 buses.”

Further, the petitioner’s submission in regard to cabinet’s decision for procuring the standard floor buses is unsustainable as it not only violates the provisions of the Disability Act, 2016 but it is also in total disregard of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 413.

The High Court on perusal of the record stated that the petitioners referred to the interim order of the Supreme Court and tried to indicate that the action to purchase the standard floor buses is unconstitutional, contrary to the requirement of law, violates the rights available to a differently abled person under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court on taking note of the case mentioned above was unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the law laid down in the case was to make all public transport user-friendly or accessible to the differently-abled persons.

The Court stated that on a plain reading of the law laid down in the case of Rajive Raturi  it was clear that it accepted the stand of the Government that by March 2018, 10% of the buses being plied by the public transport undertakings would be made user-friendly for the differently abled persons.  Therefore, the Court saw no reason as to why it should issue a mandamus and prohibit the Government of NCT of Delhi from procuring further buses in pursuance of the tender in question that is 1000 standard floor buses.

The Court held that the present matter required no further directions to be issued. The petition was dismissed. [Nipun Malhotra v. State (NCT of Delhi),2018 SCC OnLine Del 12005, decided on 22-10-2018]