Delhi High Court
Ravinder Tyagi vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Anr on 2 April, 2024
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4708/2024 & C.M.No.19283/2024
RAVINDER TYAGI ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Nikhil Palli, Advocate for MCD.
% Date of Decision: 02nd April, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1. Present public interest litigation has been filed with the following
prayers:-
i) A Writ/direction may kindly be issued against the respondents, thereby directing
the respondents to undo I replant 23 trees existed Lowards Eastern Side of
Gandhi Maidan Parking, H.C. Sen Road, Delhi;
ii) The respondent no.2 may please be directed to remove the construction
whatsoever has been raised upon the space vacated by Bapu Market (149 Teh
Bazari holders) and the space behind the Bapu Market where 23 Peepal trees
were existing but have been removed/up-rooted by the respondent no.2.
iii) The respondent no. 2 may please be directed to remove the iron grill affixed on
the side pavement and also may please be directed to remove the Barricades put
on H.C. Sen Road, Chandni Chowk, Delhi- 110006, and the respondent no.2
may please be further restrained not to use the space in between the Iron Grill
affixed on the Side Pavement and the Barricades for parking the vehicles by its
staff;
iv) May pass any other or further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
2. The petitioner, who appears in person, states that respondent no. 2 in
connivance with respondent no. 1 has cut/ removed 23 peepal trees existing
between the entry gate and exit gate of Gandhi Maidan Car Parking towards
Eastern Side. He further alleges that respondent no. 2 has illegally
encroached the side pavement and merged the pavement in the alleged space
occupied by Omaxe Mall. He also avers that respondent no. 2 has affixed
iron grills on the side pavements and put barricades around the area in
question for the purpose of parking cars belonging to the staff, which is
thereby causing inconvenience to the public at large.
3. He emphasises states that in order dated 30th August, 2018 passed by
this Court in the W.P.(C) 4572/2007, the Court had recorded the statement
of the then Deputy Commissioner of Delhi Municipal Corporation to the
effect that 65 trees existing outside/around the proposed Multi-Level Car
Parking at Gandhi Maidan, H.C. Sen Road, Delhi-110006 are not proposed
to be cut for the purposes of re-development of Gandhi Maidan Parking, as
these are not a part of re-development.
4. From the perusal of the paper book, it transpires that the petitioner has
not given any prior notice to any of the respondents before filing the present
writ petition. The petitioner has also not obtained under RTI any sanction
plan of the project in question from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
('MCD'). From the photographs placed on record, this Court is not able to
make out at this stage that 23 peepal trees have been cut for construction of
the project contrary to the undertaking given by the MCD on 30th August,
2018.
5. However, as the issue raised by the petitioner in the present matter is
an important one, this Court disposes of the present writ petition along with
the application with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, City Sadar
Phar Ganj Zone, MCD to treat the present writ petition as a representation
and to decide the same by way of a reasoned order in accordance with law
within four weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In
the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he shall be at liberty
to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
APRIL 2, 2024
KA
