Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar Bansal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 29 April, 2016
$~ 4.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.1977/2014
VINOD KUMAR BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC for GNCTD.
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Ms.
Astha Sharma, Adv. for UOI.
Mr. Anil Grover, Standing Counsel with
Ms. Mishal Vij and Ms. Noopur Singhal,
Advs. for NDMC.
Ms. Biji Rajesh for Mr. Gaurang Kanth,
Adv. for SDMC.
. Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 29.04.2016
JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. After the last date of hearing i.e. 11th March, 2016, additional affidavits,
documents and status reports have been filed on behalf of Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) as well as Union of India (UOI). However
the counsel for the GNCTD fairly admits that the same also do not address the
core concern expressed by us in our judgment dated 11th February, 2015 in the
aforesaid petition and further explained in the subsequent orders dated 19th May,
2015, 9th October, 2015 and 11th March, 2016 and which perhaps have escaped the
attention of the officials concerned.
2. Though we have expressed our exasperation; inspite of our having
expressed concern and drawn the attention of GNCTD and UOI thereto, they do
not appear to be desirous of addressing the same. We can do no more but to close
W.P.(C) No.1977/2014
the proceedings.
3. However the counsel for the GNCTD states that he, as an Officer of the
Court, realises the importance and significance of the subject qua which we have
expressed concern and will use his good offices to ensure that the same is
appreciated in the correct spirit by the authorities concerned. He states, he has
suggested that the matter be referred to National Institute of Urban Affairs and
requests us to in our order crystallise the aspects to be looked into by the National
Institute of Urban Affairs.
4. We accordingly proceed to do the same.
5. This petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) inter alia concerned
the state of the infrastructure of the city of Delhi, depriving persons with
disabilities from equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation
otherwise assured to them under law. We in our judgment dated 11th February,
2015 issued several directions in this respect and on which we are informed that
the requisite work is being done.
6. However having in a large number of PILs and other petitions coming
before us also become conscious of the day to day difficulties being faced by the
citizenry of Delhi qua the civil infrastructure/amenities to be provided by the
State/Municipal Authorities, we in paras 12 to 17 of our judgment dated 11th
February, 2015, wondered
(i) whether existence of plethora of authorities/bodies to deal with
various facets/functions over a given area/zone and further division
of the responsibility even within each of such authority/body
amongst several officials was resulting in no single person being
responsible or accountable for complete governance required for
each of the zones in which city is divided;
W.P.(C) No.1977/2014
(ii) inspite of expending huge funds and the best intentions of
officials/employees of State/Municipalities, what was coming in the
way of the city of Delhi not being able to achieve the world class
status to which it aspires;
(iii) whether the city inspite of its mammoth growth and other changes
continued to be governed in the same manner and on the same
principles as were in vogue nearly half a century ago and whether
there was any need for re-look there into
and had drawn the attention of the GNCTD and UOI to the drastic changes
effected in the management and governance of private business houses with the
help of professionals/experts and which had resulted in huge benefits thereto and
again wondered whether there are any professionals/experts in the field of
governance and whether they had been consulted, and directed GNCTD and UOI
to place before us their views on the said aspect.
7. Though since then a number of affidavits have been filed but only detailing
the works done over a period of time but which do not address the core question
whether there is a change required in the manner of governance of the city as has
worked wonders in the running of private businesses.
8. We are not experts in the subject of governance. Not even students thereof.
We are sure, National Institute of Urban Affairs will look into the matter in above
perspective and render its opinion. We however put hereinbelow our
meanderings:-
A. Whether the basic system of governance of Delhi has undergone a
change in the last half a century or has merely been expanded
including by adding agencies for new needs.
B. Whether our understanding, of private businesses having overhauled
W.P.(C) No.1977/2014
their management techniques in the recent decades and having
benefited therefrom is correct and if so, the role of professionals
therein.
C. If answer to above is in affirmative, whether there is a need to re-
look at governance of cities as Delhi.
D. Whether any betterment of governance is feasible and if so, the way
forward.
E. Whether any of the modules of governance in any of the other
advance cities of the world can be applied to Delhi.
F. Whether fixing responsibility would help.
9. We hope that we will at least now get some answers which we have been
groping for.
10. List on 5th August, 2016.
CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
APRIL 29, 2016
'pp'..
W.P.(C) No.1977/2014
