Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar Nagpal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 26 November, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.8195/2014 & CM No.19073/2014 (for directions) & CM
No.19074/2014 (for exemption).
SATISH KUMAR NAGPAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC for
R-1&2 with Mr. Jitender Singh,
Section Officer, Deptt. Of
Horticulture, CPWD, Ministry of
Urban Development.
Mr. Digvijay Rai with Mr. Ratish
Kumar, Advs. for R-4.
Ms. Zubeda Begum, St. Counsel
(GNCTD) with Ms. Sana Ansari,
Adv. for GNCTD.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 26.11.2014
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a
Public Interest Litigation, seeks directions, (i) to the Ministry of Urban
Development & Poverty Alleviation and the Dy. Director General
(Horticulture), (a) to take proper maintenance and care of the Sadiq Nagar
Sports Complex by putting proper boundary walls and separating the same
from the adjacent Ceremonial Park; (b) for stopping any kind of allotment
of the sports complex for any functions other than those related to sports
activities; and, (c) for taking legal action against the organizations / people
involved in conducting various activities therein for the past years, by
violating the allotment order / sanction letter and to collect compensation
from such people for the damage caused to the sports complex; (ii) to the
Commissioner of Police to desist from giving any kind of no objection /
security arrangements for any function at Sadiq Nagar Sports Complex
other than related to sports activities; and, (iii) to the South Delhi
Municipal Corporation to take care of the park in front of MCD School,
Sadiq Nagar, Sector-II and allot the same only as per the relevant rules and
procedure.
2. The petition is stated to be filed for the benefit of the residents of the
Government accommodation comprising of 1600 flats at Sadiq Nagar, a
colony of Central Government employees as well as for the benefit of the
residents of 1100 houses of Sanwal Nagar, a private colony. It is averred
that "due to high level connections of the people misusing the government
land the people residing in the area are not ready to come forward against
them fearing life threat and other consequences". The petitioner describes
himself as a retired gazetted public servant from Government of India and
who was earlier a resident of the colony of Sadiq Nagar and was also
elected as President of the Residents‟ Welfare Association (RWA) of the
said colony for the years 2007-2009. The petitioner is however now
residing far away from the said colony of Sadiq Nagar, at Hari Nagar, New
Delhi.
3. A reading of the petition discloses that the grievance of the
petitioner is of misuse of the sports complex in the colony of Sadiq Nagar
by Uttaranchal Kala Sangam, Sadiq Nagar and by Shiv Murti Kala
Sangam, Sadiq Nagar, who were allotted the ceremonial park for their
cultural activities but are alleged to have also used the grounds of the
sports complex.
4. The device of Public Interest Litigation was evolved by the Courts,
which otherwise follow the settled principle, of only a person with cause of
action being entitled to approach the Court, to provide access to justice to
those who, for socio-economic or other reason were unable to approach the
Court; it was subsequently extended also to cases of wrong to the public
assets in general without anyone in particular being wronged. The
petitioner in the present case seeks to espouse the cause of residents of two
colonies of which one is of Central Government employees and the other a
private one. The colony of Government employees is also stated to have its
RWA and of which the petitioner claims to be a past President. We fail to
see as to how the residents of the said colonies who have also joined
together to form a RWA, if aggrieved from the misuse if any of the sports
complex in their colony, are unable to personally / themselves / itself
access the Courts. The reason given, of such residents hesitating, owing to
the persons misusing the park "having high level connections" and "fearing
life threat and other consequences", is flimsy and vague and without any
foundation. We can safely assume that the persons allotted accommodation
in the said colony of Sadiq Nagar, are high level Government officials. The
petitioner himself claims to have retired as a gazetted officer and was
allotted accommodation in the said colony. We refuse to believe that such
serving Government officials would be handicapped, if aggrieved, in
taking up cudgels themselves.
5. Rather what appears is that the petitioner, who is a past resident and
office bearer of the RWA of the said colony, has some personal axe to
grind against the present residents of the colony or against the present
office bearers of the RWA of the colony or against the said two cultural
organizations of the colony. It would however not be appropriate for us to
make any further observations in this regard.
6. There is another aspect of the matter. The sports complex, in the
petition, is described only as a ground ad measuring two acres. It is not the
case of the petitioner that there are any sports equipments, amenities,
facilities therein or which are damaged by its alleged misuse. It is also not
the case of the petitioner that the said sports complex is open to the public
or has any membership or is in use of persons other than the residents of
the colony. Such facilities / amenities within the colony are generally only
for the benefit of the residents of the colony and we are of the opinion that
it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere in the use chosen by
the residents of the same. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that there is
an extreme dearth in the city of venues to hold such cultural or family
functions and holding such festivities or gatherings far away from the
colony does not enure to the benefit of the residents of the locality for
whom they are meant. We hesitate from, at the instance of an „outsider‟, as
the petitioner now is, initiating any inquiry which may not be in the
interest of the section of the public for whose purported interest the petition
is filed.
7. We therefore refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss the same,
refraining from imposing any costs. We however clarify that the dismissal
of the petition would not be considered as a stamp of this Court on the
misuse or the violation of the rules and regulations, if any, of the subject
sports complex.
CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
NOVEMBER 26, 2014
„pp‟..
