Nyaya Bhoomi vs Gnct Of Delhi & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 6719 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                  Date of Decision : November 23, 2012


+                Review Pet. 646/2012 in WP(C) 380/2012

       NYAYA BHOOMI                                .....Petitioner
               Represented by: Mr.J.K.Mittal, and Mr.Arun Gulati,
               Advocates with Mr.B.B.Saran, Petitioner in person.


                                     versus


       GNCT OF DELHI & ANR.                      ..... Respondents
                Represented by: Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi, Sr.Advocate
                instructed by Ms.Zubeida Begum, Advocate.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

Review Petition No.646/2012

1. Picking on the last sentence in paragraph 12 of our decision dated October 18, 2012 the Review Petition has been filed pointing out that 45 metres equals 150 feet and not 100 feet. The sentence in question reads as follows:-

"The multimodal public transport system : BRT is conceived of in such road segments where the total width of the road is 45 metres and above i.e. 100 feet."

2. During arguments in the Review Application learned counsel for the writ petitioner could not point out any assertion in the writ petition that the BRT Corridor in question was on a stretch of road having width less than 45 metres.

3. What has happened is that while noting the backdrop facts it got inadvertently mentioned that the BRT Corridor in question is on a road width whereof was 45 metres equal to 100 feet. The figure 100 is a typographic mistake and should read „150 feet‟.

4. Be that as it may since arguments were advanced that as a matter of fact the road segment in question is less than 45 metres, to clear the air on the controversy we had required respondents to file a response, which has been filed.

5. We would highlight that in the writ petition the thrust was to highlight public space being wasted on roads by dedicating an exclusive bus corridor and arguments were advanced with reference to data of number of buses vis-à-vis number of other motorized vehicles plying on the corridor in question. Traffic congestions caused by implementation of BRT Corridor were alleged and it was urged that the scheme is a complete misfit in Delhi and requires to be scrapped. No arguments were advanced with respect to the fact of the width of the BRT Corridor in question and thus the discussion in our opinion was with reference to the Master Plan for Delhi -2021 and the data which was shown to the Court.

6. Since a controversy on facts has been raised for the first time we would highlight that as per the Master Plan for Delhi - 2021 apart from National Highways, arterial roads of two kinds (i) Primary and (ii) Other Primary are conceived of, and lastly sub-arterial roads and local streets. The plan contemplates BRT Corridors on primary roads having

„ROW‟, meaning Right of Way, 30 metres and above and BRT Corridors on Other Primary Roads having ROW 45 - 60 metres.

7. Thus, issues pertaining to BRT Corridors have not to be decided with reference to the width of a road but have to be decided with reference to the span of a Right of Way.

8. What is a Right of Way? It is the distance between the straight line of houses on either side of a road. Thus, one must not confuse the Right of Way and a road. The former is wider and the latter narrower.

9. Data produced by the respondents would reveal that the Right of Way measured for the BRT corridor has a Right of Way more than 45 metres and for which we would simply highlight that the plans at page No.930 to 932 of the writ petition would suffice. The breakup details at page 928 are being confused by the petitioner as if the sum total thereof would yield the Right of Way. The data at page 928 simply indicates the width of the motorized vehicle lanes, the bus lanes, central verge, footpath and service road, and by no means is indicative of the span of the Right of Way.

10. Suffice would it be to state that in the writ petition there is no challenge that the BRT corridor does not conform to the Master Plan norms and thus we think that the petitioner cannot even attempt to urge anything with reference to the Master Plan norms being violated.

11. If it is the case of the petitioner that Master Plan norms are violated, the remedy is to file a substantive petition making specific reference to the Master Plan with reference to the physical features of the BRT corridor in the context of the Right of Way, and for which the petitioner is enriched with the data made available by the respondents.

12. We dismiss the application seeking review but correct the typographic mistake in paragraph 12 of our decision by directing that reference to „100 feet‟ in paragraph 12 of our decision would be read as „150 feet‟.

13. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE NOVEMBER 23, 2012 dk