Delhi High Court
Manushi Sangathan vs P.K. Panda And Ors. on 30 September, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 29th May 2014
Orders on: 30th September 2014
CONT. CAS (C) 564/2010, C.M. APPL. 14826/2010, 793/2012
MANUSHI SANGATHAN ..... Petitioner
versus
P.K. PANDA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 8580/2009, C.M. APPL.5656/2009 & 8503/2012
INITIATIVE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMMES ..... Petitioner
versus
MCD AND ORS. ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 4572/2007, C.M. APPL.8544/2007, 6986/2010,
17940/2011, 626/2012, 2724/2012, 2801/2012, 3663/2012,
16320/2012, 16453/2012, 16454/2012, 6497/2013, 13874/2013 &
370/2014
MANUSHI SANGATHAN ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Indira Unninayar with
Ms. Kirat Randhawa and Mr.
Narayan Krishan, Advocates, for
petitioner, in Item Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Advocate for
Chandni Chowk Vyapar Sangh, in
Item Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate
with Sh. Ritesh Kumar,
WP(C) Nos. 4572 of 2007, 8580 of 2009 & Cont. Cas. 564 of 201 Page 1 of 8
Ms. Mallika Ahluwalia and
Mr. Mayank Bamniyal, Advocates.
Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate
for the Railways, in Item Nos. 1 to
3.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, ASC for Delhi
Traffic Police with Sh. Durga
Prasad Joshi, ACP (North), Traffic
with
Mr. Sanjeev Tyagi, T.I., Kotwali.
Ms. Madhu Tewatia with Ms. Sidhi
Arora, Advocates, for MCD, in
Item Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Amit
Tiwari, Advocates, for DDA, in
Item Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
ORDER
30.09.2014
1. This order disposes of the issue concerning the plying of non-motorized
vehicles („NMVs‟) in Chandni Chowk.
2. By an order dated 24th May 2013, this Court had decided some of the
ancillary and incidental issues arising out of the implementation of the
judgment dated 10th February 2010 passed by the Full Bench. One of the
said issues pertained to the provision of NMV lanes in Chandni Chowk.
The Chandni Chowk Vyapar Mandal („CCVM‟) has been contending that
the question whether cycle rickshaws should be permitted on the Chandni
Chowk arterial road should be decided in light of the approved Zonal
Development Plan („ZDP‟) prepared by the Delhi Development Authority
(„DDA‟). CCVM questioned the plan approved by the United Traffic and
Transportation Infrastructure (Planning & Engineering) Centre
(„UTTIPEC‟), which has also prepared the Street Development
Guidelines („SDG‟) for the area, which envisaged NMVs on the main
Chandni Chowk arterial road.
3. A detailed order was passed by the Court on 24th May 2013, inter alia
requiring a joint meeting of the Special Task Force („STF‟), UTTIPEC,
Public Works Department („PWD‟) and the Delhi Traffic Police („DTP‟),
to be convened by the Lieutenant Governor („LG‟) to deliberate on the
above issue in light of the ZDP. In its order dated 3rd February 2014, the
Court directed the DDA to clarify the issues concerning the ZDP
"specifically with respect to the feasibility of creating NMV lanes in
Chandni Chowk." The DDA was asked to disclose its position "by way of
a duly sworn affidavit enclosing an authentic copy of the ZDP."
4. Pursuant to the above order, the DDA filed an affidavit dated 21st
March 2014 drawing attention to para 12.6 of the Master Plan for Delhi-
2021 („MPD-2021‟), which, inter alia, stipulated as under:
"i. On all arterial roads fully segregated cycle tracks should be
provided with provision for safe parking in park and ride lots.
ii. In urban extension, cycle tracks should be provided at the sub-
arterial and local level roads and streets.
iii. In specific areas, like the Walled City/Chandni Chowk/Sadar
Bazar/Karol Bagh/Lajpat Nagar and Trans Yamuna area, the use
of cycles/rickshaw as a non-motorized mode of transport should
be consciously planned along with pedestrianisation."
5. Para 5 of the above affidavit sets out para 7.6.6 of the ZDP for Zone
„A‟ Walled City (Part Zone „A‟ and „C‟) as notified by the Ministry of
Urban Development („MOUD‟) on 8th March 2010, which reiterated the
above actions to be taken. An authenticated copy of the ZDP was filed
separately by the DDA on 21st March 2014.
6. On 23rd April 2014, the Petitioner, Manushi Sangathan, filed its written
submissions, pointing out that in light of the affidavit filed by the DDA,
the copy of the ZDP filed by the Petitioner with its written submissions
dated 22nd February 2013 was the correct/authenticated version.
7. During the hearing on 24th April 2014, Mr. Sanjiv Ralli, learned
counsel appearing for CCVM, raised the question regarding the
correctness of the affidavit filed by the DDA as well as the copy of the
ZDP purportedly enclosed therewith. The Court then directed the DDA to
produce the original of the latest ZDP as authenticated by the MOUD.
8. The matter was again heard on 29th May 2014, when Mr. Arun Birbal,
learned counsel appearing for the DDA produced the original file
containing the authenticated ZDP.
9. The position that emerges on a perusal of the original ZDP for Chandni
Chowk, as approved by the MOUD on 8th March 2010 and the affidavits
filed by the parties is as under:
(a) In the ZDP of 2001 for the Walled City, there were ten „figures‟
enclosed and one of them was figure 8 titled „Transportation Proposals‟.
This figure showed rickshaw movement in the roads leading to the main
Chandni Chowk Road from Red Fort to Fateh Puri but not on the main
arterial road itself.
(b) Para 9.2 of the ZDP 2001 dealt with „Traffic and Transportation‟. It
noted that:
"The Traffic volume is very high (beyond the clearing capacity of
the roads) in Walled City. A large number of modes operate here
including the slow and fast vehicles, which add to the traffic
problems in the area. The area under traffic & transportation and
utilities as per existing and transportation and utilities as per
existing land use is 23.1% (131.5 ha) of Walled City."
(c) Thereafter, in para 9.2, a reference was made to figure 8 in the
following manner:
"The comprehensive system of traffic and transportation has been
worked out for Walled City (refer Fig.8). The pedestrian routes
and rickshaw movement corridors have been identified to facilitate
the traffic movement without conflict, similarly light vehicles and
bus routes have also been identified. In the preparation of urban
renewal schemes efforts may be made to pedestranise 9 mtr. wide
roads."
(d) In the draft ZDP for the Walled City prepared by the DDA in
September 2007, para 7.7 was devoted entirely to traffic and
transportation. One part of the said para 7.7 dealt specifically with cycle
rickshaws and reads as under:
"Bicycle/Cycle-Rickshaw could be an important mode of travel,
particularly with reference to short and medium trip lengths. To
the extent that it meets individual or public transport
requirements, it is a non-energy consuming and non-polluting
mode of transport.
In so far as rickshaws are concerned, apart from issued pertaining
to the aspect of mixed traffic, this mode also provided
employment to a very large number of unskilled workers residing
in the city.
In view of the above, the following actions should be
considered/taken:
(i) On all arterial roads fully segregated cycle tracks should be
provided with provision for safe parking in par and ride lots.
(ii) In specific areas of the Walled City and Chandni Chowk the
use of cycles/rickshaw as a non-motorised mode of transport
is proposed as suggested the MPD 2021 and it should be
consciously along with the pedestrianisation at the time of
preparation of redevelopment scheme."
(e) Enclosed with the Draft ZDP of 2007 was a figure concerning
„Transportation Proposals‟. However it is important to note that this was
still in the draft form. This figure 8 was identical to the figure 8 enclosed
with the ZDP 2001.
(f) However in the ZDP 2021 as approved by the MOUD on 8 th March
2010, the above figure titled „Transportation Proposals‟ enclosed with the
draft ZDP of 2007 was conspicuously absent. This has to be seen in the
context of the fact that para 12.6 of MPD-2021 and para 7.6.6 of the
authenticated ZDP 2010 both require that fully segregated cycle tracks
should be provided "on all arterial roads"; that "in urban extension, cycle
tracks should be provided at the sub-arterial and local level roads and
streets" and that in specific areas including "the Walled City/Chandni
Chowk", the use of cycle rickshaws as a non-motorized mode of transport
"should be consciously planned along with pedestrianisation."
10. Mr. Ralli, learned counsel for CCVM, submitted that since the written
text of para 7.6.6 of the ZDP 2021 is a reproduction of the corresponding
para 7.7 of the draft ZDP 2007 (which in turn was a reproduction of para
9.2 of the ZDP 2001, which enclosed a figure 8 titled „Transportation
Proposals‟), it should be implied that a "conscious decision was taken by
the DDA to continue and maintain same pattern with regard to plying of
different modes of transportation within the walled city which was
prevailing under the earlier ZDP 2001."
11. The Court is unable to accept the above submission. The absence of
any figure concerning "Transportation Proposals‟ in the final
authenticated version of ZDP 2021 and its presence in the earlier draft
version of 2007 makes it clear that the intention of DDA was not to retain
but to consciously exclude any reference in the ZDP 2021 to any
prohibition of the movement of cycle rickshaws on the main arterial road
of Chandni Chowk. The „Land Use Plan‟ enclosed with the ZDP 2021
does not also contain any prohibition on the plying of cycle rickshaws on
the main arterial road of Chandni Chowk or on the creation of NMV lanes
for that purpose.
12. Consequently, the Court rejects the contention of CCVM that the
plying of cycle rickshaws on the main arterial road of Chandni Chowk or
the creation of NMV lanes there is not envisaged by the ZDP 2021,
approved by the MOUD in 2010.
13. It may be noted that it was clarified by Mr. Arun Birbal, learned
counsel for the DDA at the hearing on 26th September 2014 that although
a mid-term review by the DDA of the ZDP and the MPD-2021 is
underway, the position as far as the approval of the ZDP 2021 as
approved by the MOUD on 8th March 2010 as stated in DDA‟s affidavit
dated 21st March 2014, remains unchanged.
14. This, accordingly, settles the issue concerning the applicable ZDP for
the Chandni Chowk area and the question of providing for NMV lanes in
the area.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
September 30, 2014
'tp/akg'
