Delhi High Court
Giri Nagar Sudhar Samitee ... vs Gnct Of Delhi And Ors on 11 February, 2013
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~15.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6313/2011
% Judgment dated 11.02.2013
GIRI NAGAR SUDHAR SAMITEE REGISTERED ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Rama Shankar and Ms.Kamlesh,
Advs.
versus
GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Shoaib Haider, Adv. for Mr.N.
Waziri, Advs. for GNCTD respondent
no.1.
Ms.Mansi Gupta, Adv. for MCD.
Ms.Beenashaw Soni, Adv. for respondent
no.3.
Mr.Akhil Purwar, Adv. for Mr.Parvinder
Chauhan, Adv. for DUSI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner Giri Nagar Sudhar
Samiti, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction
to the respondents not to open the gate in the colony and carry out
demolition for opening of the gate.
2. Petitioner claims itself to be a registered society, registered under the
Societies Registration Act and formed with the aim and objective to
protect the interest and welfare of the residents of the colony. As per the
petition, the colony is thickly populated and more than 10,000 people and
their family members are residing in the aforesaid colony.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the sub-roads, service roads and galis
are narrow and only small vehicles can pass through the lane. It is further
the case of the petitioner that with the passage of time the population of
the colony has increased and there is paucity of common space including
facilities for parking and other community activities except two or three
temples.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at one corner of the colony
facing Govind Puri main road, respondent no.3 college is situated and the
college has one of its gates opening at the main road and corner of the
said main road. There is another gate of the college opening in one corner
adjacent to the road in front of Govind Puri, gali no.1, which is convenient
for the college staff and students. Counsel further submits that both these
gates have been in existence for more than twenty years. Since respondent
no.3 was intending to open another gate, which according to the petitioner
is in the middle of the colony, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition. The petitioner has opposed the opening of another gate in the
mid of the colony, as the space, where respondent no.3 is trying to open
the gate, is being used by the residents of the colony for parking of their
vehicles and by opening of the gate in question the teachers and students
of the college would have to pass through the entire colony, which would
be a nuisance to the residents of the colony.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/ MCD submits that by a
communication dated 14.9.2010 the Principal of respondent no.3 College
had requested the MCD to remove the jhuggis in the nearby area of the
College and also sought permission to erect an additional new gate for the
college. Counsel further submits that a representation dated 22.4.2010 was
also received from the petitioner opposing the erection of an additional
gate in the colony. She submits that MCD has no objection if another
gate is open by the college.
6. Learned counsel for respondent college submits that the college had
deemed it appropriate to open another gate so that in case of any untoward
incident the fire tenders can reach the college as the two gates already
provided to the college do not have adequate width through which a fire
tender can access the building. Counsel further submits that the width of
the existing gate no.1 cannot be increased in view of the wall erected by
the college. In support of her submission, photographs have been handed
over in Court by the counsel for the college to highlight the problem. The
said photographs have been taken on record. Counsel for the petitioner
has also examined the photographs, which have been handed over to him
in Court, and submits that the colony will have no objection in removing
the wall in photograph and the gate to enable the college to increase the
width of gate no.5 to solve the problem of the college and the colony.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
contentions and also perused the documents placed on record including
the status report filed by the MCD. As per the status report filed by the
MCD, a copy of the representation of the petitioner dated 22.4.2010 was
forwarded to the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board for removal of
the illegal jhuggis and also to the Chief Fire Officer Headquarters, Delhi
Fire Service, requesting for their opinion whether the existing gates are
adequate for movement of fire fighting in the college. The letter dated
11.11.2010, addressed to the Chief Fire Officer was followed by two
reminders dated 14.12.2010 and 9.11.2011. In addition thereto, the
opinion of the Building Headquarters, MCD, was also obtained regarding
opening of additional gate in respondent no.3 college.
8. It would be useful to reproduce the operative portion of the opinion of the
Building (Headquarters) of MCD:
"The matter has been examined. Building Bye-Laws-1983 regulate
all kind of buildings. The BBLs are silent on as to how many gates
can be permitted. However, Clause 6.4.1 of Building Bye-laws
1983 lays down a provision that no notice and building permit is
necessary for certain kind of alterations, which do not otherwise
violate any provisions regarding general building requirements,
structural stability and fir (sic. fire safety requirement, of the Bye-
laws. One of such alterations is that "Opening and closing
windows, ventilators and doors not opening towards other's
property". If the additional gate meets the terms of the above
provision, the same is not objectionable from the building bye-laws
point of view."
9. This Court had also issued notice to the Chief Fire Officer, who has filed
the status report. As per the status report filed, the gates in respondent
no.3 college do not have sufficient width for fire tenders to enter into the
college in case of emergency and it has been recommended that the width
of the existing gates be increased to five meters. It has also been opined
that the opening of a new gate will not serve any purpose as there is no
viable road for free movement of motorized vehicles to access the college
premises in case of any unfortunate emergency.
10. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties
and taking into consideration the status report filed by MCD and the Chief
Fire Officer, it is clear that there is no bar for the college respondent no.3
to erect any gate in the college and the opening of a new gate will also not
serve any purpose with respect to access of fire tenders in case of
emergency. Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of with the
following agreed directions:
(i) Petitioner will remove the gate and the wall, as shown in
photograph no.5 handed over in Court, within a period of
four weeks from today as prayed; and thereafter
(ii) Respondent no.3 college will increase the width of the gate
by 5 meters or as required by the Fire Department within
four weeks thereafter.
G.S.SISTANI, J
FEBRUARY 11, 2013
msr
