Association Of Metro Commuters & ... vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 6120 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of decision: 14th December, 2011

+                                  W.P.(C) (PIL) No.8675/2011

%          ASSOCIATION OF METRO COMMUTERS & ANR. ..Petitioners
                        Through: Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta with Mr.
                                 Manish Raghav & Mr. Nikhil Singh,
                                 Advs.

                                            Versus

    DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION & ORS..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. A.S. Rao, Adv. for R-1.
                           Mr. Jatan Singh, Adv. for R-3/ UOI.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                                         JUDGMENT

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This petition, filed in Public Interest, claims the following reliefs:

"A. Issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.1 to 3 to restore the original parking space at Vishwa Vidhyalaya Metro Station.

B. Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to

Respondent No.1 to 3 not to increase the parking rates at Vishwa Vidhaylaya Metro Station from `175;

C. Issue writ of Certiorari or any other writ in nature of certiorari or any other order or direction calling for records of the case and after going into legality and validity of the tender allocated for residential and commercial development at Vishwa Vidhyalya to Respondent No.2 by Respondent No.1 quash and set aside the same."

2. The petitioner claims to be a Society. However, the documents filed by the petitioner show the petitioner to have been registered as a Society only on 03.10.2011 i.e. barely a couple of months before filing of this petition. There is also nothing to show as to how many and who are the members of the petitioner. There is thus nothing to show that the petitioner has been incorporated (even the memorandum of the petitioner has not been filed) to protect the interest of the Metro commuters, as its name suggests, or that it represents the Metro commuters. There is also nothing to show that any opportunity was given to the Metro commuters to become the member of the petitioner or that what is canvassed by the petitioner in this petition is the view of or in the beneficial interest of the majority of the Metro commuters.

3. The petitioner alleges misuse by the respondent No.1 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) of the land allotted to it for Vishwa Vidhyalaya MRTS metro station by allowing construction thereon of residential units by

the respondent No.4 Young Builders Pvt. Ltd. It is the plea of the petitioner that the land where the construction of the residential units has been permitted was earlier being used for purposes of parking of vehicles of the Metro commuters and the parking space has been considerably reduced owing to the construction being permitted. It is further contended that as per the order dated 30.03.2009 of the MRTS Cell of the Ministry of Urban Development of the Government of India, the land allotted to the respondent No.1 DMRC is not to be "normally" leased out for residential development. The petition as aforesaid also takes exception to the increase affected in the parking charges.

4. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to what is the use shown in the Master / Zonal Plan of the land use whereof is stated to have been converted from parking to for construction of residential units. The counsel for the petitioner states that neither he nor the petitioner has examined the said aspect and an enquiry in this regard be commenced by issuing the notice of the petition.

5. We have next enquired from the counsel whether the revenues of the respondent No.1 DMRC are not intended to be augmented from such developments and as to how prohibiting such development by the respondent No.1 DMRC would impact the commuter fare fixed by the Metro. Judicial notice is taken of the respondent No.1 DMRC having developed shopping / commercial malls / spaces at several metro stations in Delhi and having huge earning therefrom. We have as such enquired from the counsel whether, if the earnings of the respondent No.1 DMRC were to

be only from the fare collected from the commuters, the fares would multiply manifold. The counsel again states that the petitioner has not studied the said aspect either. He however submits that for the fear of the unknown, this Court should not restrain from entertaining this petition.

6. We are unable to agree. A person who brings a lis before the Court, even in public interest, is required to, unless the facts speak for themselves, satisfy the Court as to the illegality in the actions of the State / public body affecting the public interest. A petitioner, even in a Public Interest Litigation cannot seek commencement of a roving and fishing inquiry. It was so held in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2011 (5) SCALE 624. A litigant who is unwilling to collect / gather facts, which in today‟s transparent regime are available on the asking, cannot be allowed to waste the time of the Court.

7. Even otherwise, we find the said residential development to which objection is taken, having commenced at least in the year 2007 if not earlier i.e. four years prior hereto and the agreement of the respondent No.1 DMRC with the respondent No.4 Young Builders Pvt. Ltd. is also of 15.12.2008. From the documents filed by the petitioner itself, we also find the Government of India to have accorded permission to the respondent No.1 DMRC to generate resources through development on the land transferred to it by the Government and sanction having been accorded as far back as in 2007 by the DDA for the said residential development at Vishwa Vidhyalaya MRTS metro station. There is thus nothing before us as to show that there is any irregularity in the actions with respect whereto the petition is filed. We

as aforesaid, are not satisfied as to the bona fides of the petitioner either. Often it is found that the petitions in public interest are filed out of commercial rivalry and / or other oblique motives. The Supreme Court in Kushum Lata Vs. UOI 2006 (7) SCALE 41 & Dr. B. Singh Vs. UOI AIR 2004 SC 1923 has warned against allowing such misuse of public interest litigations. Without the petitioner placing anything before this Court that it is representative of the Metro commuters, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and which may ultimately have the effect of adversely affecting the development and functioning of the Metrorail and its commuters.

8. We therefore dismiss this petition, refraining ourselves from imposing any costs on the petitioner.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

DECEMBER 14, 2011 „gsr‟