Case Title: Ravinder Tyagi vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another
Case Number: W.P.(C) 4708/2024 & C.M.No.19283/2024
Dated On: 02nd April, 2024
Qoram: Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case involves a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Ravinder Tyagi against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and another respondent, with Mr. Nikhil Palli representing the MCD. The petitioner, appearing in person, has raised several issues related to the alleged removal of trees and illegal encroachments in the Gandhi Maidan Parking area and H.C. Sen Road in Delhi. Ravinder Tyagi asserts that 23 Peepal trees, which existed between the entry and exit gates of Gandhi Maidan Car Parking towards the eastern side, were illegally cut or removed by the respondents. He further claims that respondent no. 2 has encroached upon the side pavement, merging it with the space occupied by Omaxe Mall. Additionally, the petitioner contends that iron grills and barricades were installed on the side pavement, resulting in the area being used for staff parking, thereby causing inconvenience to the public. The petitioner references an earlier court order dated 30th August 2018, where the then Deputy Commissioner of Delhi Municipal Corporation assured that 65 trees around the proposed Multi-Level Car Parking at Gandhi Maidan would not be cut for redevelopment purposes. Despite this assurance, the petitioner alleges that the respondents violated this undertaking by removing the trees and making unauthorized constructions. Upon reviewing the petition, the court noted that the petitioner had not provided any prior notice to the respondents before filing the writ petition. Furthermore, the petitioner did not obtain any sanction plan under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the MCD. The photographs submitted by the petitioner did not provide clear evidence that the 23 Peepal trees were cut for the construction project, contrary to the MCD’s previous undertaking. The court acknowledged the importance of the issues raised and disposed of the writ petition with a directive. The Deputy Commissioner of City Sadar Paharganj Zone, MCD, was instructed to treat the writ petition as a representation and to issue a reasoned order within four weeks, after providing the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing. The court also allowed the petitioner the liberty to pursue appropriate legal proceedings if he is dissatisfied with the Deputy Commissioner’s decision.
ISSUES
- Whether the respondents illegally removed 23 Peepal trees
- Whether the respondents engaged in unauthorized encroachment and construction.
- Whether the installation of iron grills and barricades by the respondents caused public inconvenience.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Environmental Protection Act, 1986: This Act provides a framework for the protection and improvement of the environment and for matters connected therewith.
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: This Act aims to conserve forests and regulate diversion of forest lands for non-forest purposes, which may include tree removal.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PIL allows citizens to seek judicial intervention in matters of public interest, including environmental issues.
- Municipal Laws and Regulations: Local municipal laws and regulations may govern land use, construction, and environmental protection within their jurisdictions.
- Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act): The RTI Act empowers citizens to request information from public authorities, which may be relevant for obtaining documents such as sanction plans for construction projects.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The petitioner contends that 23 Peepal trees between the entry and exit gates of Gandhi Maidan Car Parking were unlawfully removed by the respondents, contrary to an assurance by the Delhi Municipal Corporation. The removal of these trees is alleged to be in violation of prior commitments regarding redevelopment plans for the parking area. The petitioner asserts that respondent no. 2 has engaged in unauthorized encroachment by merging the side pavement with the space occupied by Omaxe Mall. Additionally, unauthorized constructions have allegedly been raised in areas previously occupied by Bapu Market and where the 23 Peepal trees stood. The petitioner claims that respondent no. 2 installed iron grills on the side pavements and placed barricades around the area, causing public inconvenience and restricting access. These installations are purportedly used for parking staff vehicles, leading to inconvenience for the general public.
CONTENTIOS OF TE RESPONDENT
The respondent may deny the allegations of illegally removing 23 Peepal trees and argue that any tree removal was conducted lawfully and in accordance with relevant regulations. They might contend that the removal was necessary for legitimate reasons, such as redevelopment or maintenance purposes. Regarding the alleged unauthorized encroachment and construction, the respondent may argue that any constructions made were duly authorized and compliant with applicable laws and regulations. They might present evidence to support the legality of the constructions and dispute the petitioner’s claims of encroachment. The respondent could justify the installation of iron grills and barricades on the side pavements as necessary measures for public safety or traffic management. They might argue that these installations were implemented in accordance with relevant regulations and were essential for the efficient operation of the area. The respondent may raise procedural defenses, such as the petitioner’s failure to provide prior notice or obtain necessary approvals before filing the petition. They might argue that proper procedures were not followed in initiating the legal action and request the court to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court observes that the petitioner has alleged the illegal removal of 23 Peepal trees, unauthorized encroachment, and construction by the respondent, as well as the installation of iron grills and barricades causing public inconvenience. However, upon reviewing the evidence presented, the court finds it unable to conclusively determine at this stage whether the allegations are valid. The court notes the absence of prior notice to the respondents before filing the petition and the petitioner’s failure to obtain necessary approvals under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Despite the uncertainties regarding the allegations, the court acknowledges the importance of the issues raised by the petitioner. Given the significance of the matter, the court decides to dispose of the petition with a directive to the Deputy Commissioner, City Sadar Paharganj Zone, MCD.
The court instructs the Deputy Commissioner to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide on it through a reasoned order within four weeks. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a hearing before making a decision. In the event that the petitioner is dissatisfied with the Deputy Commissioner’s decision, the petitioner is granted liberty to pursue appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with the law.
This judgment demonstrates the court’s commitment to addressing issues of public interest while ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements. The court’s directive allows for the resolution of the matter through administrative channels, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to present their case and seek redressal in a structured manner.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani
