LexD.D.A. versus RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 163 D.D.A. A ... i v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.4866-4867 of 2009) JULY 30, 2009 8 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] +- Constitution of India, 1950: c Articles 32 and 226 - Writ petitions filed before High Court under public interest litigation - Ongoing constructions at the site of Commonwealth Games Village questioned on the ground that the same would adversely affect ecological integrity of the 'riverbed' and cause irreversible damage to D "floodplain" of river Yamuna - Direction by High Court to set .> µp a Committee to monitor the constructions carried out by I- DMRC - HELD: A P/L filed under Article 32 or 226 after inordinate delay and without reasonable explanation therefor is liable to be summarily dismissed - In the instant case, E Notification for change of land use was published in 1999 and proposal for the site for CGV was published in 2003 - Considering the reports of NEER/ and CWPRS that the site ~ in question did not fall within 'riverbed' or 'floodplain' the same was chosen for CGV - Besides, when a High Powered F Committee in association with a renowned environmentalist was monitoring the entire work, High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petitions and issuing the direction - Judgment of High Court set aside - Environmental Law - Public Interest Litigation - Delhi Development Act, 1957. G .. Article .141 - Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts - Decision of Supreme Court in relation to Akshardham Temple held by High Court as not binding! 163 H 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R. A applicable in considering CGV site - HELD: CGV site being adjacent to Akshardham Temple, the decision of Supreme Court in the said case has bearing on the issue and is a binding precedent for all purposes - Precedent. B Words and Phrases: Expressions 'floodplain' and 'riverbed' - Connotation of Pursuant to the decision taken by Commonwealth Games Federation on 13th September, 2003 to hold XIX C Commonwealth Games-2010 in Delhi, Commonwealth Games Village site was proposed to be located adjacent to Akshardham Temple in Delhi. Two writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as publi~ interest litigation, before the High Court in the year D 2007 challenging the steps taken by the governmental agencies on the ground that the ongoing constructions on the site would affect the ecological integrity of the "riverbed" besides causing irreversible damage to the "floodplain". The High Court castigating the E Governmental agencies, directed that the committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.K. Pachauri, to be constituted by the Government to examine and monitor the construction carried out by DMRC. The governmental agencies filed appeals challenging the directions issued F by the High Court whereas the two writ petitioners filed appeals as the High Court declined to stay the ongoing constructions. Allowing the appeals of the governmental agencies G and dismissing those of the two writ petitioners, the Court: HELD: 1.1. A PIL filed under Article 32 or Article 226 or of the Constitution of India after inordinate delay and without reasonable explanation, challenging a project H .. D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. 165 after commencement of its execution, is liable to be A ... summarily dismissed. In the case on hand, it is not in - . l dispute that both the petitioners approached the High Court only in the middle of 2007. Therefore, on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petitions were liable - to be dismissed. Though an objection was raised by all B the official respondents before the High Court about the inordinate delay in filing of the writ petitions, the said aspect was not either adverted to or considered by it. [Para 26 and 28] (198-G-H] ;- c Narmada Bachao Ando/an vs. Union of India (2000) 10 sec 664, relied on. 1.2. The Notification dated 21.09.1999 for change of land use was published iri the Gazette of the Government D of India. The site in question for the construction of _j Commonwealth Games Village had been chosen and t- widely published way back in the year 2003 itself. The Department also issued a Global Tender process for Public Private Partnership participation in the residential E portion of the Commonwealth Games project which was floated in December 2006 and was complet
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.