Delhi High Court
Nyaya Bhoomi vs Gnct Of Delhi And Anr. on 18 October, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: September 24, 2012
Judgment Pronounced on: October 18, 2012
+ WP (C) No.380/2012
NYAYA BHOOMI ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Arun Vohra, Advocate along
with Lt.Col. B.B.Sharma
(Representative of the petitioner)
versus
GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi, Sr.Advocate
instructed by Ms.Zubeda Begum,
Ms.Priyanka Agarwal & Ms.Sana
Ansari, Advocates for GNCTD.
Mr.Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate along
with Dr.S.Velmurugan, Principal
Scientist, CRRI.
Mr.Prashant Bhushan, Advocate
with
Mr.Anupam Bharti, Advocate for
applicant/Intervenor in
C.M.No.6311/2012.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Commencing our discussion, the Master Plan for Delhi- 2021
records that in the year 2001 the population of Delhi had already reached
13.8 million. Census data, on a projected estimate basis, would evidence
that today i.e. in the year 2012, the resident population of Delhi is around
18.2 million. Add to it to a floating population of about 0.1 million.
These are colossal figures.
2. As against the national average of 27.81%, 93.18% of the
population living in Delhi is urbanized.
3. Table 1.0 of the MPD- 2021 would reveal that the total
geographical area of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is 1,48,300
hectares, out of which 70,162 hectares stood built up as per satellite data
of 1999. With such a high density of urban population it has to be
expected that the focal points for a planned development of Delhi must
focus on the following critical areas :-
(i) Land Policy;
(ii) Redevelopment;
(iii) Shelter;
(iv) Housing for poor;
(v) Green Belt (Environment);
(vi) Health Infrastructure;
(vi) Educational facilities;
(vii) Transportation.
4. And that takes us to the subject at hand. A problem relating to
transportation has fallen in our lap. Nyaya Bhoomi, a Non-Governmental
Organization has instituted the instant petition, stated to be in public
interest, and the problem highlighted is pertaining to a stretch of road
spanning 5.6 km. The road commences from the South at Ambedkar
Nagar and moves in the Northern direction towards Delhi Gate and the
stretch in question is from Ambedkar Nagar to the Mool Chand crossing.
5. As per the writ petition, the recommendations of M/s.RITES which
have been implemented by the Government of NCT of Delhi has given
birth to a Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) corridor in question from
Ambedkar Nagar to Delhi Gate out of which only Ambedkar Nagar -
Mool Chand crossing has been made operational. The petition highlights
the problem faced when the said 5.6 km segment of the BRT corridor was
operationalized. It is pleaded that the existing road is having a divider in
between, resulting in two segments on either side of the road divider;
each having width of 50 feet. 13 feet thereof has been earmarked as
dedicated exclusively for buses and 23 feet for other motorized transport
vehicles and 11 feet for pedestrians and non-motorized transport vehicles.
Furnishing data as of the year 2010, it is pleaded that as of said year
29,849 buses were plying in Delhi and as against that 63,75,033 other
motorized vehicles such as cars, two wheelers, three wheelers and taxies.
It is pleaded that it was most irrational to dedicate 13 feet width of road
for only 29,849 buses and 23 ft for 63,75,033 other motorized vehicles. It
has been highlighted that for every one bus there are approximately two
hundred other motorized vehicles on the roads of Delhi and thus the
space allocation in the ratio 1:1.75 is not only unjust but is arbitrary and
unreasonable. It stands highlighted that whereas bus lanes remain empty
90% of the time, the other part of the carriage way is more than chock-a-
block full; in fact bursting on the seams. It is highlighted that as a result
of the BRT corridor travelling time between Ambedkar Nagar and
Moolchand for cars has increased by 23 minutes resulting in 1.5 ltr extra
petrol being consumed. It is highlighted that this is causing air pollution.
It has been highlighted that, and we quote : „No consideration is given to
the value of the time of the car users who are generally wealth creators
such as managers, directors etc. as they waste extra 20 minutes on
travelling on BRT Route'. It is however admitted that those who travel by
bus have gained on the travelling time. At the Chirag Delhi crossing, as
per the pleadings in the writ petition, a survey conducted on November
24, 2011 would reveal that as against one bus, thirty five non-motorized
vehicles cross the Chirag Delhi crossing. It is prayed that mixed traffic
be permitted on the road with buses plying on the left kerb.
6. Taking cognizance of the writ petition and issuing notice to the
respondents and after hearing the parties it was decided that the Court
would be better advised if a survey was conducted with comparative
study done after allowing mixed traffic flow vis-à-vis dedicated and
exclusive corridor for buses and a report submitted. On 15th March, 2012
following directions were issued :-
"A. CRRI and NHAI to within two weeks submit their
proposals as sought vide letters dates 14th March, 2012
of the Transport Department of the GNCTD, for carrying
out the survey/study to report to this Court as to whether
the BRT corridor has served the purpose which it was
intended to achieve; whether it has resulted in slowing
the traffic movement of vehicles other than the buses and
if so, the impact thereof on consumption of fuel and
environment; even if the said corridor has expedited the
movement of buses, the proportion of the commuters
who have benefited therefrom to the commuters who
have/are suffering; the viability/desirability of having the
bus stops as islands on the road, with no access thereto;
etc. These are few of the specifics which come to our
mind. Otherwise we trust the expertise of the said
agencies to report as to whether the project has been
good or bad for the city. The Transport Department of
the GNCTD to communicate this order to CRRI and
NHAI for compliance;
B. The Transport Department shall also within one week
of the receipt of the proposals from CRRI and NHAI,
evaluate the same and appoint either both CRRI and
NHAI or either of them for carrying out the survey/study
and preparing the report foresaid;
C. The agency so appointed shall within six weeks of the
appointment carry out the survey/study and submit its
report to this Court;
D. The petitioner as well as other representative bodies
of the citizens shall be entitled to place their views duly
supported by data and material before the agency so
appointed and which shall be duly considered by the said
agency;
E. We direct all other governmental agencies including
Police (including Traffic Police), MCD, NDMC, Central
Pollution Control Board, Delhi State Pollution Control
Committee, PWD to forthwith render all assistance and
otherwise facilitate the agency so appointed in carrying
out the survey and preparing its report;
F. The agency so appointed shall during the course of
survey be entitled to regulate the vehicular movement on
the aforesaid stretch as it may desire from time to time
including by allowing plying of vehicles other than
buses on the corridor reserved exclusively for the buses;
G. The agency so appointed shall hold consultations with
the Traffic Police and other agencies whose experience
and views are likely to have bearing on the matter;
H. The agency so appointed shall be entitled to approach
this Court for assistance if any required in preparing the
report within the time aforesaid."
7. An interim report was filed which was followed by a final report
being filed on July 10, 2012. In the meanwhile intervention applications
were filed and were allowed.
8. We had heard the matter at length on September 10, 2012 and
September 11, 2012, when learned Counsel for the parties requested
hearing to be deferred to enable them to firm up their arguments keeping
in view the arguments advanced on September 10, 2012 and September
11, 2012, much of which time was consumed in understanding the report
submitted by CRRI with the help of Dr.S.Velmurugan the project leader
of the study team which consisted of eight members.
9. It would be advisable if we were to note a few undisputed facts. At
the fore front is the fact that in India, Delhi is the only city which has the
most extensive road network; at 21% of its geographical area. But it is
over saturated being severely choked with vehicles; and for which fact
the data provided in the writ petition by the writ petitioner is sufficient
proof. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition it is brought out, as noted
above, that as of the year 2010 as against 29,849 buses plying on the
roads of Delhi other motorized vehicles were 63,75,033. Over the past
few years the Government of NCT Delhi has invested very heavily in
roads and flyovers. Today the city of Delhi has about 46 flyovers; and
yet the carrying capacity of the roads is falling apart.
10. The period between 1998 - 2003 witnessed an active intervention
by the Supreme Court in response to Public Interest Litigations on
account of data showing a dismal quality of air in the city of Delhi. The
choking haze of air pollution and its impact on public health was brought
to the notice of the Supreme Court, resulting in a spate of directives
issued to move out polluting industries from Delhi and ensure that
minimum emission standards were set for petrol and diesel driven
vehicles. The Euro II, Euro III and Euro IV norms were enforced by the
Supreme Court. Sulphur content in diesel and petrol was reduced from
500 ppm to 50 ppm. Lead free petrol, to enable application of catalytic
convertors in cars; lowering of the benzene content in petrol to 1%; CNG
as a fuel for public transport vehicles etc. were the measures introduced
and happily the city of Delhi was able to arrest, and even lower, air
pollution which dropped by about 24% by the year 2005.
11. But unfortunately, the gains which were achieved between the
years 1998 - 2005, gradually and slowly, started losing out since air
pollution levels started rising again. Notwithstanding cleaner fuel being
used by motorized vehicles in Delhi the reason for pollution level to go
up is fairly easy to guess. The writ petition, in paragraph 11, gives the
reason. The number of motorized vehicles other than buses plying on the
street in Delhi as of the year 1997 being 26,98,488 rose to 63,75,033 in
the year 2010. During this period the corresponding figure for the buses
rose from 13,576 buses as of the year 1997 to 29,849 as of the year 2010.
The culprit is known. The rising number of cars and two wheelers.
12. It is apparent that a second generation policy action was warranted.
The town planners of Delhi were conscious of the same. Their
consciousness finds a reflection in MPD- 2021. Chapter 12 deals with
transportation. The Chapter notes that there has been a phenomenal
increased in the growth of vehicles and traffic in Delhi and despite
measures taken by way of increasing the length of the road network and
road surface space through widening, construction of flyovers/grade
separators and Metro, traffic congestion continues to increase unabatedly.
It notes that roads in Delhi already occupy 21% of the total area of the
city of Delhi and recognizes that the same clearly limits the potential for
increase in road length. (Refer para 12.0 under the caption
TRANSPORTATION). The plan proceeds thereafter to lay down the
policy to bring into place a multimodal system which would be
operationalised by integrating the mutually complimentary multimodal
transportation modes comprising Road, Rail and Metro-rail network.
The plan mandates the optimum use and utilization of the road network.
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.
13. And needless to state, the Master Plan for Delhi is a statutory plan
prepared under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and has the force of
law.
14. The Master Plan for Delhi, in the subject of transportation,
embodies the principles recognized by National Urban Transport Policy
2006, which recognizes that personal vehicles have overwhelmed the
road space in urbanized areas and have choked the road infrastructure and
have eroded public spaces and additionally have consumed public money
in the form of road widening and flyovers being constructed, but the
problem subsists.
15. The writ petition itself has highlighted that number of people using
personal vehicles for transporting themselves has proportionately risen far
more than those who use public transport i.e. buses. In fact, this data has
been used by learned counsel for the writ petitioner to urge scraping of
BRT on the ground that scares public space i.e. roads is being wasted
by creating dedicated corridor for buses, which corridor remains empty
most of the time, and against that cars and two wheelers jostled for space.
The respondent would agree with the figures provided and do concede
that if the current trend continues, by the year 2021 car ridership would
increase by 106% and bus ridership would increased by only 28%, but
would use this very data to urge that keeping in view the fact that road
space cannot be augmented, there is no option other than to put into place
a good public transport system, with BRT being an integral part thereof;
for only then would the citizen of Delhi shift to public transport.
16. The writ petitioner, the respondents and the report submitted by
CRRI on July 16, 2012 to this Court, unanimously bring out that whereas
on an average each car plying on the roads of Delhi carries 1.5 persons,
the average persons carried in a bus are around 40 and during peak hours
would be between 60 persons to 70 persons. All three agree that two cars
occupy same space on the road as one bus, i.e. two cars transport only 3
persons as against 60 persons to 70 persons transported in a bus during
peak hours and around 40 persons during non-peak hours. And this
figure needs to be considered with a caveat. Whereas a car commences
and terminates its journey with the same 1.5 persons, while plying a bus
would drop and pick up many persons en-route and thus the average
number of persons found in a bus at a given point of time being 40 would
not mean that the bus has transported only 40 persons. The number of
persons transported along the route would be as high as up to 200.
17. Since the writ petitioner has very keenly relied upon the report
submitted to this Court by CRRI on July 16, 2012, we may note the
undisputed position noted in the report. The same is that about 50% trips
(persons travelling) are by a bus. In other words, of 100 people travelling
on the roads in Delhi, 50 use a public transport. And this data urges the
respondent is sufficient to jettison the argument advanced by the writ
petitioner that space allocation on the roads has to be in proportion to the
number of vehicles on the roads i.e. proportionate to the number of buses
vis-à-vis the number of other mechanized vehicles. Why not allocate the
road space proportionate to the number of consumers? Argues the
respondent.
18. The CRRI report submitted to this Court was extensively debated
upon by learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner firstly highlighted
that the survey report as per Table 6.3.1 would reveal that even the
journey time for buses fell from 17.4 km per hour to 11 km per hour
(refer page 153 of the report) when the BRT was introduced. It was then
highlighted that Table 6.4.1 of the report brought out that overall
consumer satisfaction of the BRT corridor, including those who travelled
by bus, was low when traffic flowed as per BRT corridor vis-à-vis the
traffic flow minus the BRT corridor. Data as per Table 5.7.1 with
respect to overall waiting at the BRT corridor was also relied upon. With
reference to Table 4.6.2 it was argued that the Up Direction traffic from
Ambedkar Nagar to Mool Chand would evidence a totally
disproportionately space allocation for cars and two wheelers. It was
highlighted (refer page 197 of the report) that the CRRI report clearly
leaned in favour of scraping the BRT Corridor.
19. Now, a statistical data can be fairly misleading if one does not
analyse the same with precision. Concededly, the data at page No.153 of
the report was after monitoring only one bus, a fact admitted by
Dr.S.Velmurugan, the project leader of the CRRI team. Thus, it would be
a hasty conclusion to draw, with reference to Table 6.3.1 at page 153 of
the report that even buses were plying at a slower speed when BRT
corridor was operationalized. We have before us not only the admission
made by Dr.S.Velmurugan but the data as per Annexure R-12 (page 753
of the writ paper book); the Sampling of Speed Data generated, earlier on
by CRRI and DIMTS using GPS which would evidence to the contrary
i.e. average speed for buses had increased by about 50% in the North
bound direction and by around 40% in the South bound direction after
BRT was introduced. We note that the Sampling size in the data
generated by Delhi Integrated Multimodal Transport System (DIMTS)
used GPS for all vehicles plying on the BRT corridor in different duration
of time; being 8 AM to 12 Noon; 12 Noon to 4 PM; 8 PM to 12 midnight.
20. The CRRI data as per the report dated July 16, 2012, and we refer
to pages 71 to 73 and the same very Table i.e. Table 4.6.2 relied upon by
the petitioner, would evidence that on the road segment in question i.e.
Ambedkar Nagar to Mool Chand, in the Up Direction 7167 persons
travelled in buses during peak hour as against 3108 passengers travelling
in cars, two wheelers, autos and SMVs i.e. of a total number of 10,275
passengers, 7167 travelled in buses. The corresponding figures for the
Down Direction would be 3137 passengers travelling by bus and 6326
using other modes of transportation. (A reason for the mismatch for the
two directions is that the city bound traffic is in the Up Direction). The
overall data would reveal that throughout the day 49% passengers
travelled by buses and remainder by other vehicles. Table 4.11.14 of the
report submitted by CRRI would evidence that before BRT corridor was
put into place and thereafter, bus users increased by 7%.
21. Table 4.6.2 to which we have referred to reads as under:-
"Table 4.6.2 : Peak hour Passenger flows from Ambedkar Nagar
to Mool Chand
Name of the Cars Two Autos Buses SMVs Total
Section Wheelers
Up Direction : Ambedkar Nagar to Mool Chand
Ambedkar Nagar 1688 910 383 7167 127 10,275
- Pushpa
Bhawan
Pushpa Bhawan 3814 3089 1191 6632 966 15,692
- Sheikh Sarai
Sheikh Sarai - 3876 3490 1035 12403 980 21,784
Chirag Delhi
Chirag Delhi - 2970 3502 871 8122 651 16,116
Siri Fort
Siri Fort - GK I 3912 2795 922 4531 245 12,405
crossing
Down Direction : Mool Chand to Ambedkar Nagar
Pushpa Bhawan 3259 2337 456 3137 274 9,463
- Ambedkar
Nagar
Sheikh Sarai - 3144 2027 868 4522 532 11,092
Pushpa Bhawan
Chirag Delhi - 5378 3348 1046 7348 467 17,587
Sheikh Sarai
Siri Fort - 3845 3029 985 4288 294 12,440
Chirag Delhi
GK I Crossing - 2523 2286 679 2921 189 8,598
Siri Fort
22. The CRRI report submitted to this Court makes a comparison of
the BRT corridor in question with parallel corridors; being Aurobindo
Marg and Khel Gaon Marg in terms of speed and travel time.
23. Since the two corridors are not BRT corridors and permit mixed
traffic flow, learned counsel for the petitioner had highlighted that ex-
facie mixed traffic flow is better for the roads in Delhi.
24. In our view such a comparison would be faulty because the traffic
volume on BRT corridor is 1,41,228 passenger vehicles as against 73,266
on Aurobindo Marg and 48,276 on Khel Gaon Marg.
25. Let us guide ourselves by the law on the subject.
26. The problems of Government are practical ones and may justify
rough accommodations which at first blush may appear to be illogical and
may perhaps even appear to be unscientific. But such criticism has not to
be hastily expressed. What is best may not always be discernable; the
wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of
Government are not subject to judicial review. It is only its palpably
arbitrary exercise which can be declared void. Courts should not forget
that in complex matters, every decision need not necessarily be empirical
and could be based on experimentation or what we may call „trial and
error method‟ and, therefore, its validity cannot be tested on any rigid „a
priori‟ considerations or on the application of any strait-jacket formula.
To this we may add the observations made by the Supreme Court of
United States, in the decision reported as 20 L Ed 2D 312 Permian Basin
Area Rate cases, to the effect that the Government is entitled to make
pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by particular
circumstances.
27. There is, no doubt, a degree of public accountability in all
Government enterprises, but it cannot be lost sight of that the
Government would be fully justified in adopting improved management
methods, by adopting appropriate techniques of management with
concomitant economic expediencies. These are essential matters of
Government policies which lack adjudicative disposition, unless they
violate constitutional or legal limits on power or have demonstrable
pejorative environment implications or amount to clear abuse of power.
It is trite that unless the policy formulated is absolutely capricious; not
being inferred by any reason whatsoever; is demonstrably arbitrary or
founded on mere ipsi dixit of the executive functionaries, thereby
offending Article 14 of the Constitution, alone then can it be struck down.
Otherwise the Court cannot and should not out-step its limits and tinker
with the policy decision of the executive functionary of the State.
28. In the area of road transport, if an existing system is sought to be
replaced by a more organized system, capable of better regulations and
discipline, then this is an urban transport philosophy, reflected in the
decision of the Government. Such a philosophy may have its merits and
de-merits. But they are best left to the wisdom of the executive and in
such matters of policy the accepted principle is that the Court should not
interfere. Moreover, in the context of the ever changing social scenario,
the expertise of people dealing with the subject should not be lightly
interfered with. The consequences of such interdiction can have large
scale ramification and can put the clock back by a number of years.
29. It is the principal purpose of a Government to promote the interest
of the general public rather than to distribute public goods to restrictive
private benefit. The Government has the policy option to adopt any
method or technique in managing transportation, goods and human,
provided the same is within the constitution and legal limits.
30. We only wish to bring out the fact that the issue is not of a debate
between a car and a bus or an individual car user and an individual bus
user. It is also not a debate between a class of persons traveling by buses
and a class of persons traveling by cars. Courts have not to encourage
such kind of groupism. The issue is large : one of urban transport policy.
31. Under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
(JNNURM), the grant by the Central Government through the Ministry of
Urban Development to Delhi has been utilized 83% for expansion of
roads and construction of flyovers. 15% has been spent on parking
projects and only 2% to other transport projects. What does it reveal?
Cars, cars and cars and nothing else. And yet the roads are bursting on
the seams. It could well be argued that when more than 50% of the road
passengers travel by buses it would be illogical and irrational to spend
98% of the grants under JNNURM with the targeted beneficiary being
cars.
32. There is merit in the argument advanced by those who argued in
favour of BRT i.e. Shri K.T.S.Tulsi learned senior counsel who appeared
for the Government of NCT Delhi and Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned
counsel who appeared for the interveners, that keeping in view the fact
that no more road space can be created for cars and keeping in view the
growing needs of the city, the only option is a BRT; but we water down
the argument to accept the fact that the overall data available would
certainly make BRT relevant and for the purposes of a Court adjudication
it cannot be said that the decision to implement BRT is so arbitrary,
irrational and absurd that notwithstanding it being a matter of policy,
should be struck down by a Court.
33. We would also highlight that existing data as per RITES survey of
2008, would evidence that in prominent arterial roads such as Swaran
Jayanti Marg in Dhaula Kuan, Rao Tula Ram Marg, Nelson Mandela
Marg, Olfo Palame Marg and Outer Ring Road, 70% traffic volume is
cars which carry only around 18% of the total people transported and the
10% traffic volume on these roads consisting of buses transport about
60% of the total people on the move and the remainder traffic volume of
20% transports 22% of the population. The data we are referring to,
brings out that unless traffic volume of cars is reduced, one would see
nothing but misery on the streets of Delhi. We highlight the Ring Road
segment. Designed to carry peak hour traffic of 75,000 passenger car
units, today it carries 1,60,000 passenger car units during peak traffic
hour, and if the current trend continues the figure would increase to
4,00,000 by the year 2020 and as against the current 6 lanes on Ring
Road it would require at least 18 lanes. Where would the land come
from?
34. Table 6.3.1 and Table 6.4.1 of the CRRI Report dated July 16,
2012 relied upon by the petitioner are as under:-
Table 6.3.1 Comparison of Journey Speeds during BRT and
Experimental Trial Run operation across different Vehicle Types
during Weekday.
Direction Vehicle Time Period Avg. Avg. Speed Travel Percen-
Type Journe Journey Variat- Time tage
y Speed Speed ion Variati- Change
during during (Kmph) on in
BRT Experime (Minutes) Speeds
(Kmph) ntal Run
(Kmph)
Ambedkar Bus 6 am to 8 am 27.8 18.4 -9.4 -6.4 -33.8%
Nagar to
Mool Chand 8 am to 12 pm 11.0 17.4 6.4 11.6 58.2%
12 pm to 4 pm 14.9 15.5 0.6 0.9 4.0%
4 pm to 8 pm 15.4 15.9 0.5 0.7 3.2%
Mool Chand Bus 6 am to 8 am 20.8 20.3 -0.5 -0.4 -2.4%
to Ambedkar
Nagar 8 am to 12 pm 17.0 18.0 1.0 1.1 5.9%
12 pm to 4 pm 19.3 17.3 -2.0 -2.1 -10.4%
4 pm to 8 pm 13.4 13.3 -0.1 -0.2 -0.7%
Ambedkar Auto 8 am to 12 pm 9.9 23.5 13.6 20.3 137.4%
Nagar to
Mool Chand 12 pm to 4 pm 9.9 17.1 7.2 14.8 72%.7
4 pm to 8 pm 10.4 17.0 6.6 13.0 63.5%
Direction Vehicle Time Period Avg. Avg. Speed Travel Percen-
Type Journe Journey Variat- Time tage
y Speed Speed ion Variati- Change
during during (Kmph) on in
BRT Experime (Minutes) Speeds
(Kmph) ntal Run
(Kmph)
Mool Chand Auto 12 pm to 4 pm 13.3 16.7 3.4 5.3 25.6%
to Ambedkar
Nagar
Ambedkar Two 6 am to 8 am 28.3 24.6 -3.7 -1.8 -13.1%
Nagar to wheeler
Mool Chand 12 pm to 4 pm 17.6 22.9 5.3 4.6 30.1%
4 pm to 8 pm 13.6 18.4 4.8 6.7 35.3%
Mool Chand Two 6 am to 8 am 25.4 20.3 -5.1 -3.4 -20.1%
to Ambedkar wheeler
Nagar 12 pm to 4 pm 11.4 21.0 9.6 14.0 84.2%
4 pm to 8 pm 16.5 13.4 -3.1 -4.9 -18.8%
Ambedkar Car 6 am to 8 am 24.1 24.1 0.0 0.0 0.0%
Nagar to
Mool Chand 8 am to 12 pm 20.0 16.3 -3.7 -3.9 -18.5%
12 pm to 4 pm 9.6 18.9 9.3 17.8 96.9%
4 pm to 8 pm 11.0 15.5 4.5 9.2 40.9%
Mool Chand Car 6 am to 8 am 17.9 19.1 1.2 1.2 6.7%
to Ambedkar
Nagar 8 am to 12 pm 14.9 16.7 1.8 2.5 12.1%
12 pm to 4 pm 13.9 18.8 4.9 6.5 35.3%
4 pm to 8 pm 10.0 14.8 4.8 11.3 48.0%
Ambedkar Cycle 8 am to 12 pm 12.0 11.0 -1.0 -2.6 -8.3%
Nagar to
Mool Chand 12 pm to 4 pm 12.1 13.3 1.2 2.6 9.9%
4 pm to 8 pm 14.4 12.0 -2.4 -4.8 -16.7%
Mool Chand Cycle 8 am to 12 pm 12.6 8.6 -4.0 -12.8 -31.7%
to Ambedkar
Nagar 12 pm to 4 pm 9.3 14.1 4.8 12.7 51.6%
4 pm to 8 pm 12.5 12.9 0.4 0.9 3.2%
Table 6.4.1 : Comparison of Overall Rating of Corridor by different
Vehicle users
User Opinion Survey on Corridor Rating
Type of Before BRT During Sample During Sample
Road User Implementation BRT Size Experimental Size
Overall rating Operation Run Overall
Overall Rating
rating
Auto 3.37 2.30 343 4.23 1218
Passenger
Car 3.77 2.08 2468 4.38 6718
Two 3.57 2.51 2563 4.13 4026
Wheeler
Average 3.53 2.54 9839 3.89 14105
35. Pertaining to the first table noted herein above, as noted by us in
paragraph 19 above, it stands conceded that due to a short sample on
which the data was collected, and keeping in view Annexure R-12, the
conclusions in the Table 6.3.1 have to be ignored.
36. As regards the Table 6.4.1 i.e. the consumer satisfaction, we do not
find the sample size to be adequate, but would highlight that on the scale
1 : Very Bad; 2 : Bad; 3 : Average; 4 : Good; and 5 : Very Good, the
consumer satisfaction recorded is 3.53 before BRT was implemented i.e.
between „Average‟ and „Good‟ and 2.54 during BRT operations i.e.
between „Bad‟ and „Average‟.
37. In our opinion nothing much turns on the opinion poll. In any case,
a change may not be to the liking of a person, who sees the immediate
gain, but ignores his future.
38. Nobody likes to eat bitter things or be pricked with a needle. But
when sick, bitter medicine has to be consumed or an injection needs to be
administered. A person may become sick when a particular body organ is
overstressed. Similar is the situation of a city. It becomes sick if any
system is over-choked. If roads get over-choked, there is bound to be
traffic congestion and air pollution as also individuals getting stressed
while either idling or moving slowly in cars. They must then realize that
it is their compulsion to consume the medicine, which may be bitter, i.e.
use public transport for the reason this is the only long term solution to
their problem.
39. The scattered evidence placed before us, taken together, clearly
suggests that the Government has taken a conscious decision that road
space should be made freely available to the entire citizenry. The policy
promotes the interest of the general public rather than to distribute public
space for restrictive private benefit.
40. The argument in the writ petition that those who create wealth
travel on the roads by cars and their time is precious is too egalitarian an
argument and ignores that unless labour meaningfully participates hand in
hand with the capital, by itself the capital would create no wealth.
Interests or concerns, beyond what belongs to any 1 of the 160 million
people of Delhi have to be adjudicated keeping in view the interest of all
and not a few or a group. Besides, these „wealth creators‟, we are sure
would like to live in a developed country; and we remind ourselves that a
developed country is not one where the poor own cars. It is one where
the rich use public transport.
41. Now, one fulcrum of the arguments in the writ petition is that those
who create wealth travel in cars and the BRT corridor has made the
journey time longer and that for every 1 bus plying on the roads the
number of other motorized vehicles is 200 and thus 13 feet width road
space earmarked for buses and 23 feet width road space earmarked for
other vehicles is a gross, unjust and disproportionate space allocation.
The argument is taken forward to urge that this excess journey time by
cars not only results in excess petrol being consumed but even air being
polluted; thereby damaging a public interest.
42. We encapsule the rival points. For the petitioner. Firstly,
proportionate to the number of buses other motorized transport vehicles,
such as cars, two-wheelers, taxis and three-wheelers are 200% more on
the roads in Delhi and thus distribution of road segment of 1 unit for
buses and 1.75 units for other vehicles is grossly arbitrary. Secondly,
BRT corridor has led to journey time by car increasing resulting in time
being wasted of those who create wealth i.e. Managers and Directors.
Thirdly, air being polluted due to excess petrol being consumed either
when the car is idling or is moving slowly.
43. For the BRT supporters. The proportion of road space has not to
be considered with reference to the number of buses and other motorized
transport vehicles but has to be considered with reference to the
passengers transported and since 50% people are transported in buses, a
dedicated lane for BRT, consuming 1 unit of the road space as against
1.75 units for others, is justified. The journey time for cars would
continue to increase even if there is no BRT because the number of cars
and two-wheelers on the roads of Delhi is increasing by the day and
unless BRT is accepted by the citizens of Delhi, the journey time for cars
to cover the necessary distance would continue to increase. Thus, air
pollution is not directly attributable to the BRT corridor but is a result of
excess number of cars on the roads which need to be brought down. 98%
of Central Government Grants under JNNURM have been used by the
Government of NCT Delhi in expansion of roads, construction of
flyovers and parking projects and in spite thereof there are cars, cars and
cars and nothing else. The roads are bursting on the seams due to cars. It
is akin to the population of herbivores in a forest going beyond the
sustainable limits of the forest requiring some kind of culling; and since
in a democracy it is not possible to physically seize cars and destroy
them, the only democratic solution would be to dedicate road space for
buses, which would move quick and fast and this would act as an
incentive for people to switch over to public transport. The carrying
capacity of the roads having bursted on the seams and 2 cars which carry
3 passengers occupy same space on the road as one bus; a policy has to
be evolved where people voluntarily switch over to public transport.
44. These are the broad points argued for and against, and suffice
would it be to state that the rival arguments are premised on perceptions
and certainly it cannot be said that there is no merit in either argument
(except the egalitarian argument of the petitioner of wealth creators);
though the weight of the arguments and the supporting evidence may lean
in favour of BRT. But we do not conclusively opine thereon; and would
simultaneously highlight that it would not be a case where introduction of
BRT in Delhi could be labeled as an ipse dixit of the Government of
Delhi or something which is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no rational
person would accept the same. However, we would certainly frown upon
the argument which is elitist i.e. those who generate wealth being entitled
to a larger share of the public resource.
45. Even if we were to accept the argument that as of today, with the
implementation of BRT corridor some inconvenience is being caused,
across the board, to everybody, we have to keep in mind that planning is
always long term and the fruits of the labour and sweat invested today
may not be in the immediate near and may be in the distant past. There
being no scope to expand the width of the existing roads and the
population of Delhi continuously in the increase, we see no escape from
the fact that the citizens of Delhi have to, one day or the other, use public
transport. On said reason also it cannot be said that implementation of
BRT corridors in the city of Delhi is an irrational decision.
46. Within the parameters of a scope of judicial review, the scattered
material placed before us would not justify a conclusion that BRT as a
concept is bad and is a misfit in Delhi and thus should be scrapped.
47. But, we need to note that the problem at the ground level has been
identified, and for which we are grateful to the petitioner for having
highlighted the issue by filing the writ petition, requiring us to pen a few
more paragraphs.
48. The problem is at the Chirag Delhi crossing and the 900 meters
stretch before it, when the road from Saket makes a T-junction with the
road segment between Ambedkar Nagar and Chirag Delhi crossing. The
CRRI data would reveal, as per Table 4.6.2, which we have extracted
above the number of cars, two-wheelers, autos, SMVs and buses which
ply on the different segments.
49. The T-junction we are referring to is at the point where the corridor
reaches Sheikh Sarai. The table would reveal that the Ambedkar Nagar -
Pushpa Bhawan segment has 1688 car passengers which jumps to 3814
car passengers between Pushpa Bhawan - Sheikh Sarai. This means that
a lot of car traffic joins the corridor as it crosses Pushpa Bhawan. The
next segment, Sheikh Sarai - Chirag Delhi shows a marginal increase in
the car passengers, which reaches a figure of 3876. But the same three
segments, would reveal that the bus passengers which are 7167 in the
Ambedkar Nagar - Pushpa Bhawan segment dip to 6632 in the Pushpa
Bhawan - Sheikh Sarai segment but surge to 12403 in the Sheikh Sarai -
Chirag Delhi segment. This evidences a large number of buses entering
the corridor at the T-junction under reference. At the Chirag Delhi
crossing, the corridor proceeds towards Siri Fort and we find that in the
Chirag Delhi - Siri Fort segment, the car passengers dip from 3876 to
2970 but the bus passengers dip from 12403 to 8122. This evidences that
nearly 35% of the buses which enter the corridor at the T-junction in
question proceed towards Nehru Place from the Chirag Delhi crossing,
but as regards the cars we find that only about 20% move towards Nehru
Place. In fact, the huge tail-ends which form, and thereby bring a bad
name to the BRT corridor, is due to a sudden surge of traffic, both cars
and buses in this 900 meters segment with further unequal distribution of
further traffic.
50. Can a solution be found? Shri K.T.S.Tulsi, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Government of NCT Delhi stated that the Government
is actively considering constructing a road parallel to the 900 meters
stretch, branching off at the road leading to the corridor from Saket at a
point about 300 meters before the BRT corridor and running parallel to
the BRT corridor having a clove loop above the road connecting Nehru
Place to IIT; thereby ensuring that the traffic moving towards the North
on the corridor which comes from the Saket colony direction is able to
by-pass the Chirag Delhi crossing and this would mean two gains.
Firstly, the traffic at the Chirag Delhi crossing would be reduced, and
secondly more time would be available for signaling. Learned senior
counsel also stated that the Government would consider the feasibility of
constructing an underpass for the North bound traffic to move towards
Nehru Place and Greater Kailash before the Chirag Delhi crossing, but
fairly stated that it may be difficult to do so keeping in view that just at
the crossing DDA flats were constructed long time back and it has to be
kept in mind that those who reside in the flats would also have a right to
access their colony.
51. It is hoped and expected that as a responsible government, the
Government of NCT Delhi would look into the specific problem at
Chirag Delhi crossing and would take all remedial measures necessary to
decongest the traffic at the Chirag Delhi crossing.
52. Arguments were advanced before us that buses should ply on the
left of the road, we note the same lest we are flooded with applications
that said issue was not noted. Since it is a matter of policy, we cannot
issue any direction but would highlight that a BRT corridor would require
the buses to ply on the central median side because of the right turns
which the buses have to take at the crossings and the signaling put in
place.
53. We dismiss the writ petition but without any order as to costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 18, 2012
skb/dk
