Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar Bansal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 19 May, 2015
Author: G. Rohini
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1977/2014
VINOD KUMAR BANSAL .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Adv.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Raman Duggal, Adv. for GNCTD
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC for UOI.
Mr. Anil Grover and Ms. Noopur
Singhal, Advs. for NDMC.
Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. for R-8.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 19.05.2015
1. While disposing of this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting
the non-implementation / non-enforcement of the various measures already
in place for facilitating the free movement of persons with disabilities in the
city, it was observed in the judgment dated 11th February, 2015 that perhaps
the existence of multiple agencies to undertake different tasks with respect
to roads, pavements, signages, parking spaces etc. in the city and amongst
which there appear to be no co-ordination, was behind such non-
enforcement / non-implementation of the provisions, rules and regulations
already in place. We had wondered, what could be done thereabout. We
accordingly in paras 14 to 17 observed as under:
"14. The main reason, according to us, of failure of this
facet of governance is, continuance even today of tools /
schemes / systems / policies of governance and
administration which were devised over half if not over a
century ago. The tools / schemes / systems / policies of
governance / administration which may have been effective
then, have with the vast expansion of the city and its
population and the increased demands, today failed. No
attempt to bring in new / modern tools / schemes / systems /
policies to combat the present day issues, appears to have
been made. Though we regularly hear and read of fortunes
of large businesses changing with introduction of new
management techniques, to our knowledge no such attempt
or thought even has been made / given vis-a-vis management
of the city. It is not for nothing that business houses, at huge
costs, hire management consultants to, after studying their
existing management systems, suggest changes for optimising
efficiency and profits. We do not see any reason as to why the
same cannot be done vis-a-vis a city. The governance of a city
is not completely divorced from the management of a large
corporation. What works for corporations, in our view should
work for the city also.
15. We however hasten to add that we are not and cannot
even claim to be experts on this subject. We, in fact cannot
even be sure whether such an exercise has already been
undertaken or not. We however use the platform of this
judgment to draw the attention of the governmental agency to
the issue and the urgent need for change. The Supreme Court
in Md. Abdul Kadir Vs. Director General of Police (2009) 6
SCC 611 held that where an issue involving public interest has
not engaged the attention of those concerned with policy or
where the failure to take prompt decision on a pending issue is
likely to be detrimental to public interests, Courts will be
failing in their duty if do not draw attention of the concerned
authorities to the issue involved, though not making a policy,
but acting as catalyst for change.
16. However, considering the status of the city of Delhi, we
feel that undertaking of such an exercise without involvement
of the Union of India (which is not a party to this petition) may
not serve any purpose. The new tools / schemes / systems /
policies for administration / governance of the city will have
to be devised in consultation with all the governmental
agencies having a role to play in Delhi and within the ambit
of the Constitutional status of the city. We are sure that a
competent think tank / consultant assigned the said task
would be able to devise a structure / scheme / system for
better administration / governance of the city.
17. We accordingly, in the first instance direct the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and the Chief
Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to present their views in this
respect before us by filing affidavits, within a period of four
weeks from today including as to the consultant / think tank /
expert who / which can be entrusted with the said task."
(emphasis added)
and listed the matter for compliance today.
2. None appeared for the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) and the
standing counsel had to be requisitioned and apprised of the issue with
respect whereto the proceeding is listed today. Similarly, though the counsel
for the Union of India (UOI) appears but states that he learnt of the
directions only from the letter sent by the petitioner in this respect.
3. The aforesaid conduct again shows a total apathy of the Governments
to improve governance at least qua the affairs of the city.
4. We therefore grant last opportunity to both GNCTD and UOI to
comply with the direction contained in the judgment dated 11th February,
2015, not merely by way of formality, but in the spirit in which the aforesaid
observations have been made. If the needful is not done, we will be
constrained to summon the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of
India and the Chief Secretary, GNCTD before this Court.
5. Though there was no requirement for the respondent No.2 New Delhi
Municipal Council (NDMC) to file compliance affidavit but the counsel for
the NDMC states that a compliance affidavit has been filed yesterday. The
same be got placed on record.
6. Re-notify on 1st July, 2015.
CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
MAY 19, 2015
bs..
