Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:
29. h May 2014 Orders on:
30. h September 2014 CONT. CAS (C) 564/2010, C.M. APPL. 14826/2010, 793/2012 MANUSHI SANGATHAN ..... Petitioner versus P.K. PANDA AND ORS. ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 8580/2009, C.M. APPL.5656/2009 & 8503/2012 INITIATIVE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES ..... Petitioner versus MCD AND ORS. ..... Respondents W.P.(C) 4572/2007, C.M. APPL.8544/2007, 6986/2010, 17940/2011, 626/2012, 2724/2012, 2801/2012, 3663/2012, 16320/2012, 16453/2012, 16454/2012, 6497/2013, 13874/2013 & 370/2014 MANUSHI SANGATHAN ..... Petitioner versus GOVT. OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Indira Unninayar with Ms. Kirat Randhawa and Mr. Narayan Krishan, Advocates, for petitioner, in Item Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Advocate for Chandni Chowk Vyapar Sangh, in Item Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Ritesh Kumar, Ms. Mallika Ahluwalia and Mr. Mayank Bamniyal, Advocates. Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for the Railways, in Item Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Rajiv Nanda, ASC for Delhi Traffic Police with Sh. Durga Prasad Joshi, ACP (North), Traffic with Mr. Sanjeev Tyagi, T.I., Kotwali. Ms. Madhu Tewatia with Ms. Sidhi Arora, Advocates, for MCD, in Item Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advocates, for DDA, in Item Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER
3009.2014 1. This order disposes of the issue concerning the plying of non-motorized vehicles („NMVs‟) in Chandni Chowk.
2. By an order dated 24th May 2013, this Court had decided some of the ancillary and incidental issues arising out of the implementation of the judgment dated 10th February 2010 passed by the Full Bench. One of the said issues pertained to the provision of NMV lanes in Chandni Chowk. The Chandni Chowk Vyapar Mandal („CCVM‟) has been contending that the question whether cycle rickshaws should be permitted on the Chandni Chowk arterial road should be decided in light of the approved Zonal Development Plan („ZDP‟) prepared by the Delhi Development Authority („DDA‟). CCVM questioned the plan approved by the United Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure (Planning & Engineering) Centre („UTTIPEC‟), which has also prepared the Street Development Guidelines („SDG‟) for the area, which envisaged NMVs on the main Chandni Chowk arterial road.
3. A detailed order was passed by the Court on 24th May 2013, inter alia requiring a joint meeting of the Special Task Force („STF‟), UTTIPEC, Public Works Department („PWD‟) and the Delhi Traffic Police („DTP‟), to be convened by the Lieutenant Governor („LG‟) to deliberate on the above issue in light of the ZDP. In its order dated 3rd February 2014, the Court directed the DDA to clarify the issues concerning the ZDP “specifically with respect to the feasibility of creating NMV lanes in Chandni Chowk.”
The DDA was asked to disclose its position “by way of a duly sworn affidavit enclosing an authentic copy of the ZDP.”
4. Pursuant to the above order, the DDA filed an affidavit dated 21st March 2014 drawing attention to para 12.6 of the Master Plan for Delhi2021 („MPD-2021‟), which, inter alia, stipulated as under:
“i. On all arterial roads fully segregated cycle tracks should be provided with provision for safe parking in park and ride lots. ii. In urban extension, cycle tracks should be provided at the subarterial and local level roads and streets. iii. In specific areas, like the Walled City/Chandni Chowk/Sadar Bazar/Karol Bagh/Lajpat Nagar and Trans Yamuna area, the use of cycles/rickshaw as a non-motorized mode of transport should be consciously planned along with pedestrianisation.”
5. Para 5 of the above affidavit sets out para 7.6.6 of the ZDP for Zone „A‟ Walled City (Part Zone „A‟ and „C‟) as notified by the Ministry of Urban Development („MOUD‟) on 8th March 2010, which reiterated the above actions to be taken. An authenticated copy of the ZDP was filed separately by the DDA on 21st March 2014.
6. On 23rd April 2014, the Petitioner, Manushi Sangathan, filed its written submissions, pointing out that in light of the affidavit filed by the DDA, the copy of the ZDP filed by the Petitioner with its written submissions dated 22nd February 2013 was the correct/authenticated version.
7. During the hearing on 24th April 2014, Mr. Sanjiv Ralli, learned counsel appearing for CCVM, raised the question regarding the correctness of the affidavit filed by the DDA as well as the copy of the ZDP purportedly enclosed therewith. The Court then directed the DDA to produce the original of the latest ZDP as authenticated by the MOUD.
8. The matter was again heard on 29th May 2014, when Mr. Arun Birbal, learned counsel appearing for the DDA produced the original file containing the authenticated ZDP.
9. The position that emerges on a perusal of the original ZDP for Chandni Chowk, as approved by the MOUD on 8th March 2010 and the affidavits filed by the parties is as under: (a) In the ZDP of 2001 for the Walled City, there were ten „figures‟ enclosed and one of them was figure 8 titled „Transportation Proposals‟. This figure showed rickshaw movement in the roads leading to the main Chandni Chowk Road from Red Fort to Fateh Puri but not on the main arterial road itself. (b) Para 9.2 of the ZDP2001dealt with „Traffic and Transportation‟. It noted that:
“The Traffic volume is very high (beyond the clearing capacity of the roads) in Walled City. A large number of modes operate here including the slow and fast vehicles, which add to the traffic problems in the area. The area under traffic & transportation and utilities as per existing and transportation and utilities as per existing land use is 23.1% (131.5 ha) of Walled City.”
(c) Thereafter, in para 9.2, a reference was made to figure 8 in the following manner:
“The comprehensive system of traffic and transportation has been worked out for Walled City (refer Fig.8). The pedestrian routes and rickshaw movement corridors have been identified to facilitate the traffic movement without conflict, similarly light vehicles and bus routes have also been identified. In the preparation of urban renewal schemes efforts may be made to pedestranise 9 mtr. wide roads.”
(d) In the draft ZDP for the Walled City prepared by the DDA in September 2007, para 7.7 was devoted entirely to traffic and transportation. One part of the said para 7.7 dealt specifically with cycle rickshaws and reads as under:
“Bicycle/Cycle-Rickshaw could be an important mode of travel, particularly with reference to short and medium trip lengths. To the extent that it meets individual or public transport requirements, it is a non-energy consuming and non-polluting mode of transport. In so far as rickshaws are concerned, apart from issued pertaining to the aspect of mixed traffic, this mode also provided employment to a very large number of unskilled workers residing in the city. In view of the above, the following actions should be considered/taken: (i) On all arterial roads fully segregated cycle tracks should be provided with provision for safe parking in par and ride lots. (ii) In specific areas of the Walled City and Chandni Chowk the use of cycles/rickshaw as a non-motorised mode of transport is proposed as suggested the MPD2021and it should be consciously along with the pedestrianisation at the time of preparation of redevelopment scheme.”
(e) Enclosed with the Draft ZDP of 2007 was a figure concerning „Transportation Proposals‟. However it is important to note that this was still in the draft form. This figure 8 was identical to the figure 8 enclosed with the ZDP2001 (f) However in the ZDP2021as approved by the MOUD on 8 th March 2010, the above figure titled „Transportation Proposals‟ enclosed with the draft ZDP of 2007 was conspicuously absent. This has to be seen in the context of the fact that para 12.6 of MPD-2021 and para 7.6.6 of the authenticated ZDP2010both require that fully segregated cycle tracks should be provided “on all arterial roads”; that “in urban extension, cycle tracks should be provided at the sub-arterial and local level roads and streets” and that in specific areas including “the Walled City/Chandni Chowk”, the use of cycle rickshaws as a non-motorized mode of transport “should be consciously planned along with pedestrianisation.”
10. Mr. Ralli, learned counsel for CCVM, submitted that since the written text of para 7.6.6 of the ZDP2021is a reproduction of the corresponding para 7.7 of the draft ZDP2007(which in turn was a reproduction of para 9.2 of the ZDP2001 which enclosed a figure 8 titled „Transportation Proposals‟), it should be implied that a “conscious decision was taken by the DDA to continue and maintain same pattern with regard to plying of different modes of transportation within the walled city which was prevailing under the earlier ZDP2001”
11. The Court is unable to accept the above submission. The absence of any figure concerning “Transportation Proposals‟ in the final authenticated version of ZDP2021and its presence in the earlier draft version of 2007 makes it clear that the intention of DDA was not to retain but to consciously exclude any reference in the ZDP2021to any prohibition of the movement of cycle rickshaws on the main arterial road of Chandni Chowk. The „Land Use Plan‟ enclosed with the ZDP2021does not also contain any prohibition on the plying of cycle rickshaws on the main arterial road of Chandni Chowk or on the creation of NMV lanes for that purpose.
12. Consequently, the Court rejects the contention of CCVM that the plying of cycle rickshaws on the main arterial road of Chandni Chowk or the creation of NMV lanes there is not envisaged by the ZDP2021 approved by the MOUD in 2010.
13. It may be noted that it was clarified by Mr. Arun Birbal, learned counsel for the DDA at the hearing on 26th September 2014 that although a mid-term review by the DDA of the ZDP and the MPD-2021 is underway, the position as far as the approval of the ZDP2021as approved by the MOUD on 8th March 2010 as stated in DDA‟s affidavit dated 21st March 2014, remains unchanged.
14. This, accordingly, settles the issue concerning the applicable ZDP for the Chandni Chowk area and the question of providing for NMV lanes in the area. S. MURALIDHAR, J S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J September 30, 2014 ‘tp/akg’