Vinod Kumar Bansal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 1460 Del

$~Spl.DB-2
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       WP(C) No. 1977/2014

        VINOD KUMAR BANSAL                                    ..... Petitioner
                    Through:            Mr. Mr. Khagesh B.Jha, Adv.

                                  Versus

    GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.              ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Mr.Rahul Mehra, Sr. Standing
                            Counsel with Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASG
                            for R-1&2.
                            Mr. Srivasts Kaushal, Adv for UOI.
                            Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv with Mr.
                            Mayank Mukherjee, Adv. for DDA.
                            Mr. Anil Grover, Adv. with
                            Ms.Kanika Singh, Mr. Jitendra
                            Kumar Tripathi, Ms. Noopur Singhal,
                            Mr. Rishi Vohra, Advs. for NDMC.
                            Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. for
                            Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for SMDC.
                            S.I. Ram Tirath, Pairvi Officer,
                            Traffic.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                          ORDER

% 17.03.2017

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions for implementation of measures for providing free access to public places to physically challenged persons, was disposed of vide judgment dated 11th February, 2015 issuing directions for reservation of parking spaces, installation of auditory signals

at all traffic lights, making all pavements accessible etc.

2. However while disposing of the petition we lamented the failure of governance in the city of New Delhi and wondered whether the same was owing to continuance even today of tools / schemes / systems / policies of governance and administration which were devised over half, if not over, a century ago. It was further observed:

(a) that the tools / schemes / systems / policies of governance / administration which were conceived effective a century or half a century ago and which may have been effective then, have with the vast expansion of the city and its population and the increased demands, have today failed;

(b) that no attempt appeared to have been made to bring in new / modern tools / schemes / systems / policies of governance to combat the present day issues;

(c) that 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;

(d) that 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;

(e) that we do not see any reason as to why the same cannot be done vis-a-vis a city;

(f) that the governance of a city is not completely divorced from the management of a large corporation; what works for

corporations should work for the city also.

3. We therefore drew the attention of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD), Municipal Bodies, Police and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) who were respondents to the petition to the aforesaid issues and further observed that having a re-look at the system of governance in the city of Delhi, considering the status of the city, without involvement of Union of India (UOI) will not serve any purpose and that 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 of Delhi. We further expressed confidence that a competent think tank / consultant assigned the said work would be able to devise a structure / scheme / system for better administration / governance of the city.

4. We thus in the judgment dated 11th December, 2015 besides issuing directions qua the reliefs claimed in the petition, also directed the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and the Chief Secretary, GNCTD to present their views in this respect before us by filing affidavits within four weeks.

5. Thereafter the matter has been listed on several occasions but without us being informed of any re-look having been had at any level, to overhauling of governance of the city of Delhi. At one stage, we were told that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had appointed a High Level Task Force under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, GNCTD. We however in the order dated 9th October, 2015 observed that the essential ingredients of our judgment dated 11th February, 2015 appeared to have escaped the attention and again explained in the order that what we

were looking for was, whether the city is continuing to be governed / administered as per the structure which was devised at the time of inception of the city of Delhi or anyone had considered overhauling the governance / administration which appeared to be falling with there being no accountability and with the expectations of the citizen from the State being at its lowest.

6. In our subsequent order dated 29th April, 2016 we wondered and observed:

(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;

(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 posed the following questions:

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 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 advanced cities of the world can be applied to Delhi.

F. Whether fixing responsibility would help.

7. In our subsequent order dated 3rd February, 2017 we drew the attention of the counsels to the Indian Institute of Public Administration set up to promote and provide for study of public administration and governance through machinery of government and for training of administrators to serve the people of India and enquired whether the said institute or other similar institutes had been contacted.

8. Exasperated by the lack of proper attention for a period of two years to the issue to which attention was drawn by us, we in our order dated 3rd February, 2017 also requested Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General of India attached to this Court to kindly bestow personal attention in the matter and to ensure that the matter reaches the eye of the appropriate

authority in Government of India and requested him to appear today.

9. The counsel for the Union of India states that Mr. Sanjay Jain whom we had vide order dated 3rd February, 2017 requested to bestow personal attention in the matter, has sought instructions.

10. The purport of our requesting the learned Additional Solicitor General to look into the matter was for him to give instructions to the Union of India to see the matter as highlighted in paras 9 to 17 of our judgment dated 11 th February, 2015 and explained again in orders dated 19th May, 2015, 9th October, 2015, 11th March, 2016, 29th April, 2016 and 3rd February, 2017 and to guide the appropriate authority in the Union of India in the matter. However the same does not appear to have happened.

11. We have today again expressed our exasperation and have observed that if the Government of India and the Government of NCT of Delhi are not interested in improving governance / administration, we cannot in exercise of our judicial power do anything further.

12. It appears that the leadership concerned is not sincere in the good of the citizens of Delhi. There appears to be lack of vision and flexibility to embrace change, to continuously adapt and to improve performance and commitment to service. We remind the leadership that the lack of creative and pioneering approach may make the city vulnerable to collapse and attempts to regain position which it has earlier enjoyed may seem impossible. We are living in an age where there is no room for hesitation.

13. We again remind UOI and GNCTD that if major multinationals whose market value exceed the Gross Domestic Productions (GDPs) of some developing countries realize the need to change their management status, then why not our city. Without vision and its implementation, the

city cannot aspire for world class status.

14. Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates and Ruler of Dubai in "My Vision: Challenges in the Race for Excellence" has said "Do not fool yourself into believing that we are moving forward when we are only keeping up with the general trends, while the real opportunities are slipping away."

15. Mr. Rahul Mehra, Senior Standing Counsel of GNCTD appears today and states that he is now seized of the matter and will ensure that steps in the right direction are initiated.

16. We again request Mr. Sanjay Jain, Learned Additional Solicitor General for the needful.

17. Renotify on 19th May, 2017.

CHIEF JUSTICE

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

MARCH 17, 2017 m/gsr..

(corrected and released on 11th April, 2017).