Delhi High Court
Federation Of Naraina Vihar ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 August, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 8th August, 2012
+ Review Petition No.433/2012 in W.P.(C) No.3413/2012
% NARAINA JAN KALYAN SUDHAR
SANGTHAN (REGD.) ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.K. Gupta, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.
Aditya Malhotra, Mr. Madhu Sudan
& Mr. Sachin Datta, Advs. for UOI.
AND
W.P.(C) No. 4574/212
FEDERATION OF NARAINA VIHAR RESIDENTS
WELFARE ASSOCIAION ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Vaibhav Sharma, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.
Aditya Malhotra, Mr. Madhu Sudan,
Mr. Sachin Datta & Mr. Amrit Pal
Singh, Advs. for UOI.
Ms. Zubeda Begum & Ms. Sana
Ansari, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. W.P.(C) No.3413/2012, when it came up first on 30th May, 2012, was
dismissed with the following order:-
"1. In this petition filed as PIL, the petitioner i.e. Naraina Jan
Kalyan Sudhar Sangthan (Regd.) made grievance of the change
of the original plan to have two Metro Stations i.e. Narina-I and
Narina-II parallel to Ring Road to a underground station in the
residential colony, Naraina. The submission is that this has been
done without any basis and once the metro line passes through
the residential colony it will cause lot of inconvenience to the
residents of the colony.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the DMRC has produced
before us correspondence with the Federation of Naraina Vihar
Residents Welfare Associations showing that it is the residents
of that very locality i.e. Narina who wanted the diversion of
route i.e. passing of the Metro through their colony, to make the
commutation more accessible to the residents. It is this request
of the residents which was considered by the DMRC and
acceded to after the matter was examined at highest level. The
realignment, therefore, cannot be faulted with. In any case,
these are the executive decisions and the courts have not to
interfere with the same.
3. We do not find any merit in this petition which is
accordingly dismissed."
2. Review is sought pleading that the documents produced by the
respondent no.3 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) on that date
were then not seen by the petitioner/its counsel; that the petitioner thereafter
approached the respondent no.3 DMRC for the said documents; the
respondent no.3 DMRC supplied only a copy of the letter dated 22 nd
October, 2011 of the Federation of Naraina Vihar Residents' Welfare
Association and the Note dated 31st October, 2011; that the said documents
disclosed that the Federation of Naraina Vihar Residents' Association never
agreed to diversion of approved elevated metro route to underground metro
station through the colony of Naraina Vihar and on the contrary the said
Federation had also opposed the underground metro station vide their letter
dated 22nd July, 2011.
3. The Federation of Naraina Vihar Residents' Welfare Association has
also filed W.P.(C) No.4574/2012 impugning the decision of the respondent
no.3 DMRC of changing the original plan of construction of two elevated
metro stations parallel to the Ring Road to an underground metro line
through the residential colony of Naraina Vihar. It is pleaded therein that the
proposed metro line from Mukundpur to Yamuna Vihar is aligned mostly
parallel to the Ring Road and is not entering into any residential area; that
originally the metro stations of Naraina-I (opposite Kendriya Vidalaya-3)
and Naraina -II (Near Maruti Sales and Service Centre) were planned on the
West side of the Ring Road providing direct connectivity to general public
at large residing in the total area of Naraina Vihar Industrial Area, Inderpuri,
PUSA, Cantt. Board, Naraina Vihar Extension; that there was no opposition
to the same; however the respondent no.3 DMRC suddenly altered the said
plan also approved by their consultants and now proposes construction of
underground metro station in the residential colony of Naraina Vihar at
Block-B, DDA Local Shopping Commercial Complex, Naraina Vihar by
demolishing lot of public properties and community facilities. It is alleged
that the said alteration/change of plan is arbitrary, mala fide and without
proper survey of residential areas. It is further pleaded in the petition that
upon the Federation representing to the respondent no.3 DMRC, the
Federation was assured that their grievances would be redressed. Various
other arguments are also given as to how the initial plan is better than the
altered plan.
4. The counsel for the respondent no.3 DMRC appearing on advance
notice has again produced the relevant records which have been perused by
us. The metro line as per the original plan was passing through Defence land
behind Naraina Vihar and the location of the proposed Naraina -I and
Naraina-II stations was found to be isolated and not convenient to
passengers. On the contrary, taking the metro line underground through
Naraina Vihar and locating the station at Naraina Vihar was found to be
convenient from the point of view of passengers and to add to the ridership,
Naraina Vihar being a thickly populated residential area. Even though such
alteration was found to have a financial implication of Rs.246 crores and the
altered plan required part demolition of the market and affecting the entry of
residential houses along the proposed station, but was found advisable.
5. The records further show various other studies having been carried
out for so alerting the plan.
6. The letter dated 22nd October, 2011 (supra) of the Federation refers to
a meeting held between the office bearers of the Federation and the
respondent no.3 DMRC on 14th October, 2011 and thanks DMRC for
addressing the residents' concerns and objections regarding the likely
problems of residential area where underground metro station is located. A
request was made for addressing few other concerns viz of entry and exit
points of the station, the houses/ buildings above the underground metro line
being not affected adversely during the construction, safety and security
concerns of commuters and parking etc. The same is also indicative of the
discussion in the meeting having revolved around the altered plan and not
against it.
7. We therefore do not see any ground to review our order disposing of
W.P.(C) No.3413.
8. Though the Federation, on the basis of whose letter, W.P.(C)
No.3413/2012 was disposed of, appears to have now changed its mind and
is also now opposing the underground metro line through the colony of
Naraina Vihar but once we find the respondent no.3 DMRC to have taken
the decision after considering all the aspects, we are not inclined to
interfere. Earlier also some residents, albeit of different colony, had filed
W.P.(C) No.8516/2007 and W.P.(C) No.8517/2007 in this Court opposing
the elevated metro corridor from Defence Colony to Nehru Place. The said
writ petitions were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide
judgment dated 30th May, 2008. It was held that questions such as whether
the metro line should be underground or elevated, fall in the realm of policy
making entailing techno economic aspects and a writ court would be at a
great disadvantage in either finding fault with the policy or issuing direction
for modification of the same. It was yet further held that the multiple
dimensions of the problem are not judicially manageable particularly where
the policy does not suffer from any perversity capable of correction without
affecting the vital assumptions on which it is based. Judicial restraint as the
only mantra was adopted.
9. We are of the opinion that the present challenge is fully covered by
the aforesaid judgment and has to be repelled and the writ petition to be
dismissed. However, as assured by the respondent no.3 DMRC in the said
cases also, DMRC to attempt to redress genuine grievances of the residents,
capable of redressal within the policy framework.
10. With these observations the review petition as well as the writ petition
are dismissed. No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AUGUST 8, 2012
pp..
