Delhi High Court - Orders
Sidhartha Extension Pocket C Residents ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 January, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva, Sanjeev Narula
$~1 (Special Bench)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11740/2023
SIDHARTHA EXTENSION POCKET C RESIDENTS
WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Suruchi Mittal, Mr. Abhishek
Gautam and Mr. Deepak Kumar,
Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Piyush Beriwal and Mr. Nikhil
Kumar Chaubey, Advocates.
Mr. Rajesh Katyal, Advocate for
NCRTC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 05.01.2024 REV. P. 335/2023 & CM APPL. 63274-77/2023
1. Petitioners had filed the subject Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Responder to implement the original plan i.e. option 1 to construct the viaduct for the Delhi - Meerut Regional Rapid Transit System by-passing the Pocket - C, Siddhartha Extension, New Delhi.
2. This court by Judgment dated 15.09.2023, had noticed that the National Capital Region Transport Corporation (NCRTC for short) is a specialized government entity with extensive experience in executing complex and heavy infrastructure projects and they have a W.P. (C) 11740/2023 Page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/01/2024 at 22:19:44 robust safety mechanism in place to monitor, supervise and direct construction activities. This court also noticed that there was a thorough evaluation by a team of experts and NCRTC had deliberated on the feasibility of the proposed alignment options. This court noticed that the potential alignment options for the concerned viaduct had undergone rigorous evaluation by a team of domain experts. This court held that NCRTC's decision was anchored in valid technical and social consideration. The Petition was thereafter dismissed.
3. Subject Review Petition was filed by the Petitioners seeking review of the order contending that the Respondents had concealed a vital document i.e. the Report about the Technical feasibility of Option - 1 prepared by Committee of Exports for Asian Development Bank (ADB for short).
4. The contention of the Review Petitioner that the Technical Feasibility Study Report was not taken into account at the time of taking a final decision, was noticed in order dated 08.12.2023. This contention was refuted by learned counsel for the Respondent who submitted that the said report was duly taken into account by the said experts and a conscious decision was taken not to accept the same. He prayed for time to produce the relevant record.
5. Pursuant to order dated 08.12.2023, the original records have been produced by the respondents, which show that in the meeting held on 21.03.2023 between the representatives of the NCRTC and the ADB, the subject Technical Feasibility Study Report conducted by W.P. (C) 11740/2023 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/01/2024 at 22:19:44 the Committee of experts of Asian Development Bank was duly taken into account.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter made submission on the merits of the feasibility of options. Learned counsel further submitted that there was further material which was not taken into account.
7. It may be noticed that the review is premised on the alleged non consideration of the Technical Feasibility Study Report conducted by the Committee of experts of Asian Development Bank, which as noticed above is incorrect. Said report was duly taken into account by the domain experts. Further material allegedly not taken into account is alleged to be material which has surfaced or come into existence after the passing of the order. There is no reference to such material in the Review Petition.
8. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Further, no ground is made out to review the judgment dated 15.09.2023. The Review petition is accordingly dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 5, 2024 NA W.P. (C) 11740/2023 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/01/2024 at 22:19:44